Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Cane**

Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs
By Emanuella Grinberg, CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder calls order to pay legal costs "slap in the face"
Westboro lawyer says order consequence of lawsuit, says money will fund protests
Snyder's family sued Westboro Baptist Church for protesting Marine's funeral in 2006
4th Circuit reversed judgments against Westboro in '09; high court will hear case

(CNN) -- The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters' legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a "slap in the face."

"By the court making this decision, they're not only telling me that they're taking their side, but I have to pay them money to do this to more soldiers and their families," said Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq in 2006.

Members of the fundamentalist church based in Topeka, Kansas, appeared outside Snyder's funeral in 2006 in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "You're going to hell," "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Among the teachings of the church, which was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, is the belief that God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events such as soldiers' deaths.

Margie Phelps, the daughter of Fred Phelps and the attorney representing the church in its appeals, also said the money that the church receives from Snyder will be used to finance demonstrations. But she also said that the order was a consequence of his decision to sue the church over the demonstration.

"Mr. Snyder and his attorneys have engaged the legal system; there are some rules to that legal engagement," said Phelps, a member of Westboro who says she has participated in more than 150 protests of military funerals.

"They wanted to shut down the picketing so now they're going to finance it," she said.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered that Snyder pay more than $16,000 in costs requested by Westboro for copies of motions, briefs and appendices, according to court documents.

In a motion filed in October, Snyder's lawyer, who is representing him for free, asked the court to dismiss the bill of costs, or, alternatively, reduce the 50-cent fee per page or charge Snyder only for copies that were necessary to make their arguments on appeal.

"We objected based upon ability to pay and the fairness of the situation," Sean Summers said.

The mostly pro-forma ruling is the latest chapter in an ongoing legal saga that pits privacy rights of grieving families against the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message.

Snyder's family sued the church and went to trial in 2007 alleging privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were reduced to $5 million.

Westboro in 2008 appealed the case to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's claims that its First Amendment rights had been violated.

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to address issues of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services" as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased.

The justices will be asked to address how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.

Both Phelps and Snyder's attorney said they were surprised that the 4th District chose to weigh in on the issue of legal costs when they could have waited until after the Supreme Court hearing.

Phelps believes the ruling bodes well for her side.

"It is a good harbinger of the fact that the Supreme Court will remind this nation that you don't have mob rule. The fact that so many people hate these words does not mean you can silence or penalize them. That's supposed to be the great liberty that we congratulate ourselves on protecting in this nation. We strut all around the world forcing people to give all the liberties we supposedly have," she said.

Phelps anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling in the church's favor would be unpopular, but she said Westboro's members viewed the potential outcome in Biblical terms.

"When the Supreme Court unanimously upholds the 4th Circuit, it's going to put this country in a rage, and we will be expelled," she said. "But whenever it was time for an epic event in the Bible, the thing that happened right before is the prophets were removed from the land, and that's what's going to happen to us. ... We're going to sprint to the end of this race."

Snyder claims he is unable to pay any legal costs in the case and is attempting to raise funds on his son's site, http://www.matthewsnyder.org/. He is equally optimistic that he will prevail before the Supreme Court.

"The American people keep my spirits lifted a lot and give me hope. I think most of the country is on my side on this issue," he said. "Too many people have died to protect our rights and freedoms to have them degraded and spit upon like this church does."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/westboro.baptist.snyder/index.html?hpt=Sbin

CNN's Bill Mears contributed to this report.

Being a military guy myself it makes me want to rage that such tasteless protests happens at a deceased person's funeral. To exploit these opportunities in order to parade your hatred against homosexuals is about as selfish and un-Christian as it gets too. The protestors also point to how this country is based around free speech which is ironic since service men and women are the ones putting their lives on the line...goes back to that saying: "I may not agree with what you say but I'll die defending the right to say it."

I am pretty ignorant but I thought this kind of stuff was already outlawed but apparently not or maybe not under these circumstances. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule here? I think it should definitely favor Snyder's family.

**Commissar Molotov**

Phelps and his relatives/worshippers are some of the biggest douchebags in the world...

That having been said, they do have a First Amendment right to be douchebags. Unless that fellow can prove that Phelps' clan is impeding HIS rights by their outrageous actions, they get to keep on being douchebags.

The law protects saints and sinners alike. If it protected the Illinois Nazis when they marched, it'll protect Phelps and his inbred flock as well.

**KingCracker**

Im probably not looking at this in a legal view, but that is just total BS! Those people should not be allowed to protest and say those things at someones funeral first of all. Free speech or not, thats just WAY past the decent thing to do. That marines family was trying to grieve the fact that their son died, but couldnt from that church doing what they did. Now the family has to pay for the court costs?!? Cmon.

I say that the ruling should be over turned just on the grounds of decency

**BrookM**

I'd gladly pay, to see that church wiped out. A friend of mine told me about how they picketed at the funeral of one of his friends, it's just disgusting that they do this to people who risk their lives for their country.

**sebster**

Given the marine's family initially won the case and only lost on appeal I'm surprised costs were awarded against them. I'd thought costs were awarded when the losing side had not made much of an argument, and really wasted everyone's time - given they initially won the case...

Anyway Phelps is jackhole and while he has a right to express his jackhole views I cannot see the benefit from letting him do it at a funeral. While a funeral is underway the cemetary should be considered private property and only open to mourners, and someone looking to breach that should be deemed a trespasser.

**Spacemanvic**

Thats not a REAL church, those people should be run off. What they are doing is in DIRECT violation of the tenets taught in the New Testament. Disgraceful.

**MeanGreenStompa**

So all them right wing extremists want to bomb people for free healthcare but can't be bothered to go terrorise someone that actually needs it, like this God bothering soldier hater?

Seriously all you militia types, us democratic types will buy you all beers if you go waste the Westborough baptist church congregation.

**Frazzled**

Commissar Molotov wrote:Phelps and his relatives/worshippers are some of the biggest douchebags in the world...

That having been said, they do have a First Amendment right to be douchebags. Unless that fellow can prove that Phelps' clan is impeding HIS rights by their outrageous actions, they get to keep on being douchebags.

The law protects saints and sinners alike. If it protected the Illinois Nazis when they marched, it'll protect Phelps and his inbred flock as well.

Thats exactly their argument molotov.

because they have to be at the funeral the people are a captive audience, and thus their right to freedom of assembly and practice of their religion is being violated.

I'd recommend a drive by myself if I weren't such a loving person.

Is Frazzled joking?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Given the marine's family initially won the case and only lost on appeal I'm surprised costs were awarded against them. I'd thought costs were awarded when the losing side had not made much of an argument, and really wasted everyone's time - given they initially won the case...

Anyway Phelps is jackhole and while he has a right to express his jackhole views I cannot see the benefit from letting him do it at a funeral. While a funeral is underway the cemetary should be considered private property and only open to mourners, and someone looking to breach that should be deemed a trespasser.

nope. We have a primitive craptacular legal system Sebbie. Your recommendation would stop many a frivolous lawsuit.

**Orkeosaurus**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So all them right wing extremists want to bomb people for free healthcare but can't be bothered to go terrorise someone that actually needs it, like this God bothering soldier hater?

They were being opposed by some right-wing groups, actually. Motorcycle clubs, if I recall.

Anyways, I agree with the ruling. If this kind of thing is to be stopped, it needs to be down to a matter of property rights, not a "right to privacy" trumping a right to freedom of speech. Sebster's idea of public cemeteries being "rented out" for the length of the funeral is a good one. A private cemetery should be able to exclude them in any case. They can yell and wave signs from the street, as long as they don't block traffic.

I should probably add, Westboro isn't a group of amateurs in the legal department; they know exactly what they're doing, front and back, and they make a lot of money through the legal settlements of people who get mad at them. (Hell, for all I know they don't care about evil gays at all, and just set the whole thing up as a racket.)

**Frazzled**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So all them right wing extremists want to bomb people for free healthcare but can't be bothered to go terrorise someone that actually needs it, like this God bothering soldier hater?
They were being opposed by some right-wing groups, actually. Motorcycle clubs, if I recall.

Anyways, I agree with the ruling. If this kind of thing is to be stopped, it needs to be down to a matter of property rights, not a "right to privacy" trumping a right to freedom of speech. Sebster's idea of public cemeteries being "rented out" for the length of the funeral is a good one. A private cemetery should be able to exclude them in any case. They can yell and wave signs from the street, as long as they don't block traffic.

I should probably add, Westboro isn't a group of amateurs in the legal department; they know exactly what they're doing, front and back, and they make a lot of money through the legal settlements of people who get mad at them. (Hell, for all I know they don't care about evil gays at all, and just set the whole thing up as a racket.)

Thats why you don't sue them, you vent your righteous anger on them. You have to pass the time somehow.

**Cane**

Hmm did some Googling on this subject and came across this:

The Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act (Pub.L. 109-228, 120 Stat. 387, enacted May 29, 2006) is an Act of Congress that prohibits protests within 300 feet (90 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration (a division of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs) from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_America%27s_Fallen_Heroes_Act

A handful of states already passed similar legislation to the above; no wonder since these "protestors" have trolled at over 150 funerals already. Didn't realize that such legislation existed.

**Nurglitch**

The Westboro Baptist Church is a racket; a professional trolling act that's designed to exploit the legal system for profit. Seriously, do some research. It's all there for those who look.

**Kilkrazy**

Cane wrote:Hmm did some Googling on this subject and came across this:

The Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act (Pub.L. 109-228, 120 Stat. 387, enacted May 29, 2006) is an Act of Congress that prohibits protests within 300 feet (90 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration (a division of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs) from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_America%27s_Fallen_Heroes_Act

A handful of states already passed similar legislation to the above; no wonder since these "protestors" have trolled at over 150 funerals already. Didn't realize that such legislation existed.

It sounds extraordinary. I would have thought it would fall foul of the right of Free Speech.

We can hope that the Phelps crew may fall foul of general public opinion, winning this battle but losing a general war thanks to the publicity it brings them.

**Lord-Loss**

Has anyone been on the West Boro Baptists Church Website?

This is seriously sick though... Why aint these people dead yet?

**Da Boss**

Nobody wants to go to jail for these losers.

**Fateweaver**

Unfortunately laws allow the stupid to be protected from harm.

**Nurglitch**

Fateweaver wrote:Unfortunately laws allow the stupid to be protected from harm.

**Commissar Molotov**

Kilkrazy wrote:
We can hope that the Phelps crew may fall foul of general public opinion, winning this battle but losing a general war thanks to the publicity it brings them.

Everybody hates their guts, Kilkrazy - they have NO popular support, period. Large numbers of law enforcement have to be detailed to guard the Westies to keep angry mobs from tearing them apart. Here's a YouTube video of them being attacked by an angry mob while cowering in their van:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGKx2pTBQc

**Golden Eyed Scout**

Lord-Loss wrote:Has anyone been on the West Boro Baptists Church Website?

This is seriously sick though... Why aint these people dead yet?

Only the good die young. Jackassess like these get to live for a long time. But they spend a lot longer in hell.

**Frazzled**

Withdraw protection. The police have no duty to protect individuals-thats affirmed by SCOTUS.

**RustyKnight**

Huh, www.godhatesfags.com is down. Guess I won't get my fix of crazy yet. Maybe CARM or Stormfront can provide me with lulz.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Just look up the wiki for them. their beliefs are interesting. I feel really bad for the congregation.

**Albatross**

Yeah, yeah, free spech, freedom of assembly, blah blah....

If they were Muslim fundamentalists picketing Ground Zero in NY, they would be clapped in irons quicker than you could say 'Guantanamo'...

**Iron_Chaos_Brute**

Sickening feths.

Good job by these guys, though-standing up to this filth.

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:Yeah, yeah, free spech, freedom of assembly, blah blah....

If they were Muslim fundamentalists picketing Ground Zero in NY, they would be clapped in irons quicker than you could say 'Guantanamo'...

Maybe in the UK. not here.

**Soladrin**

Okay, this might be just me, but if this happened at a funeral I was attending I'd go ape gak banana's and start kicking peoples asses, it's what the deceased probably have wanted knowing the people I hang out with.

Also, how the hell is this allowed? This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, their openly slandering people here, though I don't believe in any god that hates homosexuals (because it's utter nonsense).

Put these nutters on a cross if they want to be so zealous.

I have plenty of homosexual and bisexual friends and I'm completely intolerant of people who take hating them serious. (I don't mind using the common terms for them and such things because every single homesexual I know takes the piss out of it too

)

It is completely beyond me why these kind of things even still exist in this day and age.

God I love religion >______________<

**Orkeosaurus**

Soladrin wrote:Okay, this might be just me, but if this happened at a funeral I was attending I'd go ape gak banana's and start kicking peoples asses,

And they would sue the hell of out you for assault with their well-oiled legal machine. That's why they do this in the first place! Seriously, the more people lose their temper over their shennanigans the happier they are. That's the whole point of teh trolllin.

Also, how the hell is this allowed? This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, their openly slandering people here, though I don't believe in any god that hates homosexuals (because it's utter nonsense).

Um... saying that god killed your relative because he hates gay people isn't slander. It's not even close, legally.

**Soladrin**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Soladrin wrote:Okay, this might be just me, but if this happened at a funeral I was attending I'd go ape gak banana's and start kicking peoples asses,
And they would sue the hell of out you for assault with their well-oiled legal machine. That's why they do this in the first place! Seriously, the more people lose their temper over their shennanigans the happier they are. That's the whole point of teh trolllin.

Also, how the hell is this allowed? This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, their openly slandering people here, though I don't believe in any god that hates homosexuals (because it's utter nonsense).
Um... saying that god killed your relative because he hates gay people isn't slander. It's not even close, legally.

Really... you care about legal in a situation like this? (I won't and it'd be bloody worth cracking some skulls for).

And saying THEIR god has killed my relative pretty much makes them culprits in it since they worship and plan for "him". Any system that even remotely allows this BS should be scrapped.

**Orkeosaurus**

Soladrin wrote:Really... you care about legal in a situation like this?

Would I care whether or not I financed their operations? Of course I would.

And saying THEIR god has killed my relative pretty much makes them culprits in it since they worship and plan for "him".

No, it really doesn't. In any sense.

Any system that even remotely allows this BS should be scrapped.

"Freedom Isn't Free."

**Soladrin**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Soladrin wrote:Really... you care about legal in a situation like this?
Would I care whether or not I financed their operations? Of course I would.

And saying THEIR god has killed my relative pretty much makes them culprits in it since they worship and plan for "him".
No, it really doesn't. In any sense.

Any system that even remotely allows this BS should be scrapped.
"Freedom Isn't Free."

How so? They believe he is real, and that he actively killed my "relative". By their own logic they are guilty. But when it isn't in their favor, it suddenly isn't?

And, freedom isn't free? How does that add anything to this situation? Freedom will never be free as long as we remain. That doesn't mean we have to tolerate this.