Parents of a Marine killed in Iraq who sued the nutjob Westboro Baptist Church, which has made a habit of picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in action as a way of cheaply attracting attention (on the basis that even hostile attention is good attention, I guess) are being required to pay the legal costs of Westboro Baptist as a result of an appellate court decision.
Lawyers for the father of a Marine from Maryland who died in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters say a court has ordered him to pay the protesters’ appeal costs.
Lawyers for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., also say he is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court agreed earlier this month to consider whether the protesters’ message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered that Snyder pay costs associated with the Fred Phelps’ appeal. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder’s funeral in 2006 in Westminster.
CLICK HERE to learn more about The Al Snyder Fund.
I’m floored by the workings of the legal system, and floored again that the newspaper actually published the link to the site where the family can take donations.
I just paypal’ed over my Starbucks budget for the week – $20 – and I implore you to do the same thing, and to pass this around to your friends and ask them to do so as well.
I can comfortably say – without feeling like I’m going Goldstein – that the folks who run Westboro Baptist are insane and vile; I’d love to see them get flattened by the legal system.
And a shoutout here to the Patriot Guards who in large part sprung up to protect military funerals from these clowns.
–
While I’m with you on funding their SCOTUS challenge, I can’t imagine that they can’t get the costs order for Phelps stayed pending the SCOTUS decision. That said, I think decency is going to lose this one, legally speaking.
I’m curious as to why they are being ordered to pay Phelps’ costs, in advance of any decision. That seems very strange.
Can anyone explain?
I agree with Eugene Volokh “here”:http://volokh.com/2010/03/08/the-phelpsians-speech-the-mohammed-cartoons-and-the-slippery-slope-2/ that the 4th Circuit, and the legal system did its job correctly:
It’s a good textbook example for discussing First Amendment limits. We only need free speech guarantees when the speech offends people. The 4th Cir. relies on Sup. Ct. precedent (Milkovich) holding that speech that does not make factual allegations about a particular individual is categorically protected. [I’ve only glanced at the case just now]
There is a saying that bad facts make bad law. This fact pattern sure qualifies for bad facts. Ugh.
Joe:
To your question, it does not appear that the court awarded attorney’s fees to the church. The judgment obtained by the plaintiffs at the trial court level was for $2.9 compensatory (emotional distress) damages and $2.1 of punitive damages. The 4th Circ. reversed because they found the speech was constitutionally protected.
The court noted that this church has been involved in this type of activity, and embroiled in litigation over it, in many places. As a result 41 states and the federal government have passed anti-picketing near funeral statutes. Such statutes could provide for attorneys fees to prevailing plaintiffs, but there is no indication in the case that this was the case here.
[If attorney’s fees were involved, I agree with the first comment above that this would be stayed pending an appeal. A bond might have to be posted.]
Out of work, but I just sent the family $20.
Phelps is going to hell someday…. along the rest of his crew.
Big time shout out to the PGR…. Those folks rock.
Full circuit court opinion is “here”:http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Snyder%20v.%20WBC%20-%204th%20Circuit%20Opinion,%20Doc.%2082,%209_24_09%20%284%29.PDF (in PDF). Page 31 has the summary.
As the appealing party forcing the defendants to continue their defense despite previous decisions in their favor, the law “requires the appellant”:http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5420-marine-s-father-ordered-to-pay-appeal-costs-of-westboro-baptist-church-bigots to pay the defense’s court costs. While not exactly acting as a prohibition on double-jeopardy, it does at least make pursuit of things like frivolous appeals more difficult by making the plaintiff bear a cost for continuing the case. Considering how litigious we’ve become as a society this seems like a rational procedure to keep in place, even when it works in favor of Phelps’ particular brand of deliberately provocative exhibition.
A funeral ought to enjoy at least as much first amendment protection as a protest designed to disrupt the funeral. It is, normally, an act of religious expression; and even where it is not, atheistic funerals are accorded the same protections (e.g., the atheist ‘symbol’ “for government headstones”:http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp is a protection designed to respect atheist’s non-religious beliefs in this area usually associated with religion).
I’m not sure why Phelps’ band would be entitled to a 1A right that disrupts someone else’s right; or why it’s OK to put protestors in a “free speech area” at a political convention to protect the feelings and images of two-bit Congressmen, but not at a military funeral where it would protect the feelings of the honestly suffering family of those who died in our service.
Thanks, Roland and tagryn for explaining that. Makes sense now.
As for Grim’s point, it’s a good one – but the local authorities are responsible for the security framework to make that work. So far, courts seem to have dealt favorably with “free speech zones” and similar measures. It seems that local rules creating “free speech zones,” that were, say, 400 meters or more from the cemetery would probably work.
Given the group’s out-of-town status, I suspect other, broader approaches might also be useful.
I remain surprised that a net-based anti-campaign with boilerplate local legislation, etc. does not yet exist to deal with these kooks.
Bill O’Reilly said he’ll pay the ordered amount on the father’s behalf.
It’s in the “Talking Points Memo”:http://video.foxnews.com/v/4130538/talking-points-330/?playlist_id=86923
I’ve been told he’s also offered to pay the costs of the appeal, but I’m currently trying to find a way to confirm that.
Good on ya, Bill O’Reilly.