TV Schedule

US anti-gay church to pay $10.9m


  3. Mr_Costello
  4. related topics
A US church whose members cheered the death of a soldier as "punishment" for the nation's sins has been ordered to pay $10.9m (£5.2m) in damages.
Mr_Costello

15 responses // US anti-gay church to pay $10.9m

  • http://current.com/items/86425731_gay_bashing_church_to...
    This man will write the 10.9 million dollar check...
    This man will write the 10.9 million dollar check...
    joshuaheller
  • I just can't even imagine the hatred some people have in their hearts for meaningless shit they don't even REALLY have an opinion about. It's amazing how far people will go. I have half a mind to go find them and smack them in the face and ask them What the HELL is wrong with you?? God loves EVERYONE (if you believe in god) not just the fucking straight tight ass people. I can't type anymore, this is ridiculous.
    Tarapotamus
  • Fred Phelps has been a f*ck head for decades!
    Thank God(no pun intended) that someone is finally giving him a taste of his own medicine. Although I'm sure he'll soon go right back to being the same old hate filled monger that he's always been. I just don't understand how anyone can treat other people this way. It makes no sense to me. And anyone that agress with what Fred Phelps does....PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.
    ssppeencceerr
  • watch now for all the other offensive groups claiming that their right to insult and offend people has been eroded. The price of freedom is responsibility as someone famous once said...
    couchtripper
  • http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21578578/
    Don't you think that's a little ridiculous?
    Don't you think that's a little ridiculous?
    What does being gay have to do with being in the military and serving our country? Fred Phelps is absolutely naive to the world around him. Here's the video of Albert Snyder, the soldier's father, on the "Today Show" this morning.
    kari_ickert
  • How long will it be before this precedent is used to sue anti-war protesters for causing mental anguish to a parent of a deceased soldier?

    The issue here is free speech. The idea that free speech can be restrained if it causes someone mental anguish is chilling. This is a slippery slope.

    These uber right-wing religious protesters are cruel and insane. No question. But I'm not happy with this verdict and I hope it is overturned.
    Erwinosticism
  • I wouldn't be surprised if it's overturned on appeal but I do think they shouldn't be allowed to preach their hateful rubbish anywhere they like. A funeral, in my opinion, really crosses the line.

    The question is - are they protected by or abusing the first amendment? Personally, I think they're grossly abusing it.
    richjm
  • I'm afraid I have to agree with Erwin. Many people died to win us the right to free speech. If we allow people to take this right away from us, simply because we didn't like what someone said, we could lose a right that many of us take for granted. This is really a no-brainer, we need an appeal. However, I do find it frightful that a church could have 10 million dollars in the first place and I find it even more frightful that the Catholic church awarded 600 million for children who were abused by priests. 600 million clams!!!!! I often wonder if the church shouldn't be taxed.
    Uckfay
  • another example of just how extremist churches can get. not only is what they did offensive and insensitive, the connection between homosexuality and the war seems so tenuous and redonkulous.

    but i do not believe free speech is at stake in this matter. this is not the government doing anything to prevent, limit, or curtail speech, which is what free speech protection is about and also what is actually protected. an argument could be made saying the government is involved in a court upholding such an award but at the end of the day these individuals caused a harm to another person. this case is about a tort and in no way is a limitation of free speech.

    no one is saying u can't say what u want but there can be consequences to what u say. there already exist more significant restrictions on speech and these are yet to lead to the erosion of free speech some worry about.
    looey23
  • I don't support extremist churches, but I don't think the fine matched the crime. That's a bit ridiculous to award 10million for what basically amounts to disrespect. By awarding the victims such a prize, and yes I agree they were victims, the court is definitely trying to send a message that freedom of speech can be a no/no. But I can assure you that this will be overturned, so it was ultimately a loss. But the victims weren't interested in the money anyway, right? So maybe they made their point and are happy.
    Uckfay
  • five years ago, Fred Phelps' entourage of hate came to a high school in my town after a scandal involving some football players.
    These people know nothing of compassion, they are insane and they are dangerous.
    blythe
  • Let's not forget that the principle of free speech has NEVER been without limits. The Constitution does NOT countenance slander, libel, defamation or the cry of "fire!" in a crowded theater. Moreover, this was an award based upon the intentional infliction of emotional distress -- the absolute right decision!
    dharleston
  • Maybe it is ridiculous but that goes more to an issue of the amount of tort damages the legal system allows. Also, it wasn't a "fine." A jury decided upon the amount.

    I don't think the court has any agenda against freedom of speech, especially because this was a civil jury trial. Maybe the amount of damages will be reduced but i hope the verdict is not overturned.

    More importantly, churches like this even making a free speech argument are perverting the right we as Americans possess to free speech. Freedom of speech is not intended to protect u saying whatever u want in a manner that is offensive, insensitive, and hurtful. The entire point of free speech is to allow discussion and dissent. There's no need to interrupt a funeral with hatred towards a group of individuals who u dislike.

    Further, their picketing is against homosexuality. They're not calling for a stop to the war but rather saying the war it a result of tolerance of gays. What purpose are they serving by invading a funeral? Their actions are completely misplaced in terms of accomplishing their goals or furthering their message (as much as I may disagree with it).

    People do not understand that free speech does not actually mean u can say whatever u want without any limitations or consequences to what you say. The law already contains many, many limitations on speech and this law is constantly evolving. Beyond what the government is allowed to do in regulating speech, you can say what you want but that does not mean everyone has to like it or that there will not be consequences for it.

    And as dharleston wisely pointed out this award of damages is based on inflicting emotional distress not on what was said.
    looey23
  • Doesn't the ability to sue a group, and force them to pay a multi-million dollar financial settlement, effectively limit their speech? Isn't that really the intent of the jury award, to shut up these idiots by forcing them to pay damages that they can't possibly pay?

    When you look at this ruling, do you think it's possible that people will use this precedent as a way to attempt to stifle free speech by forcing a group into bankruptcy?

    I'm picturing the ultra right wing of the Republican party hiring expensive legal teams to shut up antiwar activists because they feel "damaged" by what was said at a rally. A well funded campaign could bury a judge in so many legal briefs that anything to do with common sense become facts for a jury to decide.

    This isn't like yelling "fire' in a crowded theater. They aren't putting lives at risk or creating a safety hazard with their speech. They're just being idiots. That's legal. "Idiotic speech" is in the eye of the beholder.

    Objectionable speech is supported by the first amendment. The KKK and the Nazis have a right to gather in public and preach their hatred.

    The fact that this religious group is full of hateful morons is not in question. What's in question is whether they have a right to be hateful morons in public. The answer is yes.

    And when they speak, all they do is expose that they're a bunch of idiots. It's better to let them talk so we can identify the nut cases before they run for office.
    Erwinosticism

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.