News Father of US Marine killed in Iraq ordered to pay.

[elect_eng]

... I can assure you - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that if this was my brother, if you came to me with insults like that, I would kill you. No mercy. No hesitation. The lowest thing anyone can do is to insult the dead. ...

No that is not the lowest thing anyone can do. Killing someone for uttering words is lower.

 

[Evo]

No that is not the lowest thing anyone can do. Killing someone for uttering words is lower.

I think it's more of a moral rather than rather physical outrage.

 

[elect_eng]

Why do American Government protect villains like this?

The reason is very simple. The US founding fathers felt that it is much worse to let a Government become the villain. The protection of basic rights, like freedom of speech, is a protection against the government itself. If we give up these rights, we can initially stop individual villains from doing these annoying things, but we will then be powerless to stop being oppressed by the government itself.

What force would you rather try to oppose on your own; the entire US government with the most powerful military might in the world, or a handful of ignorant religious zealots with nothing but cruel words to throw at you?

 

[elect_eng]

I think it's more of a moral rather than rather physical outrage.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm morally outraged, physically outraged and emotionally outraged, as well as any other kind of outrage you can mention. Does this justify me killing someone for what they say or think? How moral would that be?

 

[Evo]

What force would you rather try to oppose on your own; the entire US government with the most powerful military might in the world, or a handful of ignorant religious zealots with nothing but cruel words to throw at you?

It seems that we have given ourselves over to the ignorant religious zealots.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What Americans need to do if they are so offended is to display a response. Let them know how we feel in a constructive and powerful way. We shouldn't expect government to handle everything, because they don't. Let's boycott and protest the protesters. Those who are upset should take action. Get off your butts boo-hooing on the internet and get something done.

 

[elect_eng]

It seems that we have given ourselves over to the ignorant religious zealots.

No more so than we have given ourselves over to the nats and mosquitos that try to bite us while we enjoy the breeze on a warm summer evening.

 

[Max Faust]

The reason is very simple. The US founding fathers felt that it is much worse to let a Government become the villain. The protection of basic rights, like freedom of speech, is a protection against the government itself. If we give up these rights, we can initially stop individual villains from doing these annoying things, but we will then be powerless to stop being oppressed by the government itself.

What force would you rather try to oppose on your own; the entire US government with the most powerful military might in the world, or a handful of ignorant religious zealots with nothing but cruel words to throw at you?

WTF are you talking about dude? Passive aggressive nonsense taken to the next level?
The post is about some people showing up at some guys funeral to insult and scorn his family.
WTF?
Do you consider that a "right"? They you are sick as well.
You have no right to insult and scorn the dead. Especially not the dead soldiers. Especially not if they died during some kind of - however misguided - campaign to protect YOUR stinking ***. F-- you.

 

[turbo]

Let's boycott and protest the protesters.

How will that help? The Westboro nuts don't care if they are ignored by the loved ones of the fallen soldiers, and counter-protests just put hate-mongers on an equal footing with outraged citizens who want to stop the idiocy. Our "media" has long since stopped reporting actual news and facts and will present every such confrontation as a a case of A vs B with no moral or ethical context. Watch TV on Sunday mornings to see this non-dynamic in action. Side A makes unsubstantiated claims, side B makes unsubstantiated claims (with various degrees of veracity on either side), and the hosts refuse to call out the liars. Just give them a forum, let them fight it out, and call it journalism. I never turn on the TV on Sunday mornings anymore. If I did, I'd throw a brick through the screen in about 5 minutes.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

How will that help?

I think we show a unified force of hundreds of thousands or millions they will listen. Of course this is fantasy.

 

[Max Faust]

Those who are upset should take action.

I would if I could. Or should. If it isn't *my* fight, I prefer to stay out.

But I'd show up any bloody day to defend the honourably dead! Be they from here or there. It's the same idea everywhere. Even if they are enemies! If you're a warrior, you fight. That's what you're there for. Just don't push this too far...

 

[elect_eng]

WTF are you talking about dude? Passive aggressive nonsense taken to the next level?
The post is about some people showing up at some guys funeral to insult and scorn his family.
WTF?
Do you consider that a "right"? They you are sick as well.
You have no right to insult and scorn the dead. Especially not the dead soldiers. Especially not if they died during some kind of - however misguided - campaign to protect YOUR stinking ***. F-- you.

In the spirit of this topic, I would ask that these comments not be deleted by a moderator.

You are completely missing my point, and actually misrepresenting it, but that is your right if you choose to do it.

 

[Max Faust]

Okay. My view won't change no matter what.

Edit to add: Wherever you come from and whoever you are, you know that it's *wrong* to dishonour the dead - and especially so when their family and relatives are standing next to the scene. If you do that you deserve to get killed. Brutally and mercilessly. That's all.

 

[Evo]

Unfortunately taking on religious fundimentalists isn't easy, or even possible.

Normal, rational, religious people are fine. They also have issues with the fundies.

We need to meet the normal people in the middle.

 

[Max Faust]

Ewww...

This is all just really very unpleasant, isn't it?

Why would anyone show up at some guy's funeral just to insult the mourners?

I don't get it.

Edit: The level of HATE it takes to do something like that is alien to me.

 

[turbo]

I think we show a unified force of hundreds of thousands or millions they will listen. Of course this is fantasy.

There has been at least one funeral that was given an honor-guard and cordon by my fellow bikers to keep the Westboro loons at bay. I'll try to dig up a link, if I can. There are a lot of veteran's organizations in this state that are heavily populated with bikers, and our state organization (United Bikers of Maine) partners with the Marines and the Salvation Army every year to make Toys for Tots the largest annual charity event of the year (by far). We enjoy a very high popularity rating in the state for our charity work and for rehabilitating neglected old cemeteries, etc. Young and old and all ages in between line our parade route through the state capitol to look at all the bikes and wave at all the bikers and join us at the Salvation Army collection-point later to enjoy the bands and vendors and to donate toys, clothing, bedding, and other things that might make kids' Christmas a bit nicer.

It would be hard to find a less hospitable place for the Westboro creeps to spew their hatred, if bikers were well-motivated to watch their battle-plans and stop them. You'd be hard-pressed to find a DA in this state that would press charges against a veteran biker if one of the Westboro activists insisted on bashing his face repeatedly on the biker's fist. I do not advocate vigilantism or violence, but the Westboro hate-mongers are bringing their own brand of assault to these funerals, and the law has not yet managed to adapt to respond in kind.

A dear friend of mine died a number of years ago. She was a Quaker who attended Universalist services in her older years. A really sweet, nice lady who volunteered her time for many causes and spent about every week-day evening traveling over 50 miles/night plus hours of classroom time to teach immigrants English as a second language. People like her are like streams that so gradually and inexorably sculpt the landscape through which they move. The Westboro nuts would pay her and her friends no attention at all. They want attention, press, and notoriety, and they wouldn't look too tough confronting a group of mild-mannered 60-80 year olds advocating for peace and civility.

 

[elect_eng]

Edit to add: Wherever you come from and whoever you are, you know that it's *wrong* to dishonour the dead - and especially so when their family and relatives are standing next to the scene. If you do that you deserve to get killed. Brutally and mercilessly. That's all.

You know I really object to you directing this comment at me. You seem to imply that I would dishonour the dead. I wouldn't do so ever - with or without relatives around. I wouldn't do it to my worst enemy and certainly not to a fallen hero. When I defend the right to free speech in the USA, I do so in honor of these fallen heros.

DON'T EVER IMPLY OTHERWISE AGAIN!

 

[zomgwtf]

I am uncertain of the circumstances of the protest. Were they protesting inside during the wake, on the public cemetery grounds during burial, or outside on the sidewalk yelling?

Greg none of this really matters. It wasn't truly 'illegal' for them to just be protesting there. People DID however agree with everything that is being said in this thread and that's why 2 months after this incident a Bill was passed to prevent protests within a certain amount of time of a scheduled funeral within a particular distance.

The families lawsuit has nothing to do really with the legality of protesting in a particular area. That's a case being filed BY THE GOVERNMENTS. The case filed by the family is a private civil case and it only has to do with the fact that:

one does not have the right to conspire to use lies in order to inflict intentional harm upon persons who are grieving the death of their children.

http://www.matthewsnyder.org/
The protestors didn't only use the protest to convey their message, they took to the internet and other various forms. Their purpose wasn't to spread some message of their church, it was MERELY TO INFLICT HARM to the grieving family of a WAR HERO PERIOD. They were initially awarded something like $8 million, but now they have to fork over $16k. (Not really though since Bill O'Reilly has said he would cover them)
There has been no set date on needing to pay the money but if Phelps decided to collect the Snyder family has absolutely no way to pay and they shouldn't HAVE to pay anyways. They are the victims why the hell should they pay anything? So if Phelps decides to do this prior to the Supreme court ruling THEY HAVE TO PAY, doesn't matter what goes on.

 

[zomgwtf]

You know I really object to you directing this comment at me. You seem to imply that I would dishonour the dead. I wouldn't do so ever - with or without relatives around. I wouldn't do it to my worst enemy and certainly not to a fallen hero. When I defend the right to free speech in the USA, I do so in honor of these fallen heros.

DON'T EVER IMPLY OTHERWISE AGAIN!

Attempting to protect those that say:

he was raised for the devil and taught him to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery...

Is, in my eyes, the same thing as flat out agreeing with what they are doing. You are defending the wrong side, by far. If any of these fallen heroes could come back and you were to ask them, did you die for this form of freedom? I highly doubt they will tell you, yes, yes I did die for nutcases to cause my family distress for raising me as a Catholic.

In fact a main part about modern wars is to go in and KILL the nutcases that cause distress to families worldwide. These people should be included.


Anyways.
I don't think that think that this particular protest they did had to do with Snyder being gay, eveything I could dig up has to do with him being a Catholic and him being a Marine.

 

[MotoH]

They are protesting at a Marines funeral in Florida who died in Marjah on March 22nd. I am not sure when the Protest is, but I hope that something unfortunate happens to them.

 

[zomgwtf]

Anyways would I be within my fundamental rights, if I were American of course, to burn down their church if they were to cause this type of distress throughout my family?

 

[elect_eng]

... the same thing as flat out agreeing with what they are doing. You are defending the wrong side, by far. If any of these fallen heroes could come back and you were to ask them, did you die for this form of freedom? I highly doubt they will tell you, yes, yes I did die for nutcases to cause my family distress for raising me as a Catholic.

Again, this is misrepresenting my position. I am not protecting or agreeing with what they are saying. Nor do I have any sympathy or affection for these people. They make my skin crawl. Defending the right to free speech is not the same thing as agreeing with them. I am not defending their side. I am defending my side which says that freedom of speech is too important to water down. I think fallen heroes would say they did die for this form of freedom. Clearly they would not say they died for nutcases to cause their family distress. This is the unfortunate downside for having the freedom of speech.

I'd like to see these people stopped by legal means, but not by watering down freedom to protest and speak our minds, nor by killing them in cold blood. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how this can be done, but it is starting to sound like a fraud or scam case could eventually be built up over time. However, I'm just speculating based on random statements that have been made in this thread. Are these people expressing a real concern they have, however misguided, or are they trying to profit from harassing people? There is a big difference between the two situations.

This debate about the double-edged-sword nature of free speech has been going on for centuries. The US founding fathers debated this issue and came down on the side that the benefits outweigh the problems. They had first hand experience with what can happen when basic freedoms are denied. When people join the military, they swear to defend these freedoms. If they die in service, they die defending these ideals. I'm not about to try and second guess what they might say if they could be raised from the dead, but it's clear what they said before they died. They said it in words and they said it in deeds.

 

[Cyrus]

Is all the shouting in this thread really necessary? Yes, the American legal system has its down sides. Welcome to the real world. The people on the Supreme Court know the law better than you people posting here, so if they ruled in favor of the Church there was a reason why.

 

[Evo]

Is all the shouting in this thread really necessary? Yes, the American legal system has its down sides. Welcome to the real world. The people on the Supreme Court know the law better than you people posting here, so if they ruled in favor of the Church there was a reason why.

It hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet.

 

[Cyrus]

My mistake, I misread someones post. Anyways, the point is this: a court does not rule in favor of what is popular. It rules based on what the law says. In this case, it's unfortunate for the family, but that does not mean the court is wrong, or that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision. The SC will only make sure the law was followed, that is its purpose.

 

[calculusrocks]

Again, this is misrepresenting my position. I am not protecting or agreeing with what they are saying. Nor do I have any sympathy or affection for these people. They make my skin crawl. Defending the right to free speech is not the same thing as agreeing with them. I am not defending their side. I am defending my side which says that freedom of speech is too important to water down. I think fallen heroes would say they did die for this form of freedom. Clearly they would not say they died for nutcases to cause their family distress. This is the unfortunate downside for having the freedom of speech.

I'd like to see these people stopped by legal means, but not by watering down freedom to protest and speak our minds, nor by killing them in cold blood. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how this can be done, but it is starting to sound like a fraud or scam case could eventually be built up over time. However, I'm just speculating based on random statements that have been made in this thread. Are these people expressing a real concern they have, however misguided, or are they trying to profit from harassing people? There is a big difference between the two situations.

This debate about the double-edged-sword nature of free speech has been going on for centuries. The US founding fathers debated this issue and came down on the side that the benefits outweigh the problems. They had first hand experience with what can happen when basic freedoms are denied. When people join the military, they swear to defend these freedoms. If they die in service, they die defending these ideals. I'm not about to try and second guess what they might say if they could be raised from the dead, but it's clear what they said before they died. They said it in words and they said it in deeds.

If the funeral was on private property, then he was trespassing and can easily be thrown in jail. Other than that, I'm not going to be the one to throw someone in jail because of something he said either.

 

[calculusrocks]

Although, I can't say I watch Bill O'Reilly, he's demonstrating to all of us how a free press works. The public is made aware and is able to make their own judgments. Freedom of press is a check against many, many wrongs and needs to be protected.

 

[Choronzon]

I recall a number of years ago I saw a program where a journalist name Louis Theroux spent time with this cult—it was fascinating. I ended up feeling bad for the younger members of the group, because they were so obviously controlled by the elders in the church.

During one poignant moment, a young woman in the group (about 20 years old) was asked by Mr. Theroux if it made her sad that she believed he was going to hell, since they had struck up a sort-of friendship during the week he was there. She told him that it was God's will or something similar, but she had tears in her eyes...

I can never understand why some religious people torture themselves.

 

[OmCheeto]

hmm... I'm a bit divided here. Did Matt risk his life to protect the rights of his fellow citizens to bad mouth Matt and his family upon his death for their own gains? Yes, I believe he did. But I think he'd be pissed at how that privilege had been abused.

This is probably one time where I'd not advocate shooting the lawyers, but have them bring up a civil suit against the Westboro group on behalf of the honor guard that was probably at the funeral for, well, making them feel bad for defending their ****ing country.

Thank you Matt.

 

[zomgwtf]

My mistake, I misread someones post. Anyways, the point is this: a court does not rule in favor of what is popular. It rules based on what the law says. In this case, it's unfortunate for the family, but that does not mean the court is wrong, or that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision. The SC will only make sure the law was followed, that is its purpose.

Which court? The court which originally said it was illegal or the Court o Appeal which overturned that vedict (even though it knows the Supreme Court is going to look into the matter and they overturned it prior to this)?

I guess that means that all that time that the judicial system was ruling in favour of hatred in America they were never wrong once huh? Just doing their job protecting the laws, instead of the people.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Personally I would have called out these clowns, they are my heroes. I suppose though that clowns likely would have disrupted the funeral too.

As Russ points out the decision rests on whether or not they were intentionally harassing the family of the dead soldier or simply exercising their right to free speech. The problem is in making it a civil suit. The family was apparently so aggrieved as to spend time enough in court over such a psychologically traumatic event that they received a judgment of 11 million dollars. Eleven million dollars because some people were mean to them. Most people would be content with calling the police and having the offenders removed or quieted. But apparently that was not nearly enough for the Snyders. So not surprisingly they were counter sued since the people they sued were likely not capable of coughing up eleven mill.. This is the sort of mess you get into in a sue happy country. You get upset at people for being jerks and sue them for millions of dollars and they sue you back.
None of this was necessary and it could have easily stopped when the funeral was over. Or the Snyders could have been a bit more conscientious and found more productive means of stifling the ignorant jerks who assailed them at their sons funeral than suing for millions of dollars in "pain and suffering". Perhaps they did not ask for so much. Perhaps it was the judge who was ridiculous in this regard. But they ought have seen this coming and the judge who awarded such an amount should be ashamed of himself for creating this situation.

 

[BoomBoom]

I think they should schedule a Gay Pride parade in front of this church leader's house everday!

 

[zomgwtf]

I think they should schedule a Gay Pride parade in front of this church leader's house everday!

Or an athiest gathering? They are fundies right? The athiest can shout very hatefull and discriminate things at them.

Oh wait isn't religion protecting under current hate laws?

 

[Cyrus]

Which court? The court which originally said it was illegal or the Court o Appeal which overturned that vedict (even though it knows the Supreme Court is going to look into the matter and they overturned it prior to this)?

I guess that means that all that time that the judicial system was ruling in favour of hatred in America they were never wrong once huh? Just doing their job protecting the laws, instead of the people.

The job of the court is to uphold the law, the job of the legislature is to make them. Please take a class in civics.

As a side note, you only need to use one question mark when you ask a question. Unless you're hard of hearing?

 

[zomgwtf]

The job of the court is to uphold the law, the job of the legislature is to make them. Please take a class in civics.

As a side note, you only need to use one question mark when you ask a question. Unless you're hard of hearing?

This wouldn't be a simple matter of class in civics it would require a class in law. Your are mistaken in your thoughts, it's not that simple.

The job of the court also involves setting precedent which involves how the laws are interpreted and how the are applied. They don't write the law but it is definitely part of the system that they interpret it in certain situations, this being one of them and that is why the Supreme Court has agreed to accept this case.

Alas, that's not what this case is about though. It all has to do with the intent of the church and their comments, were they intentionally just trying to harm the grieving family?
Also you can keep your snide remarks to yourself about whatever posting etiquette I have that you dislike, that or just report me (I'm pretty sure you already have actually). There's no need to try and make people look or feel stupid but from reading the majority of your posts that seems to be one main reason you continue to come here.

 

[Cyrus]

This wouldn't be a simple matter of class in civics it would require a class in law. Your are mistaken in your thoughts, it's not that simple.

The job of the court also involves setting precedent which involves how the laws are interpreted and how the are applied. They don't write the law but it is definitely part of the system that they interpret it in certain situations, this being one of them and that is why the Supreme Court has agreed to accept this case.

Alas, that's not what this case is about though. It all has to do with the intent of the church and their comments, were they intentionally just trying to harm the grieving family?
Also you can keep your snide remarks to yourself about whatever posting etiquette I have that you dislike, that or just report me (I'm pretty sure you already have actually). There's no need to try and make people look or feel stupid but from reading the majority of your posts that seems to be one main reason you continue to come here.

That's because the majority of people that respond to me don't spend the time reading what I write, and then try to misrepresent my statements. If you so choose to do that, don't expect me to be nice to you in response: I have no more patience for it. FYI: you should reevaluate how you respond to my posts.

 

[D H]

I am not protecting or agreeing with what they are saying. Nor do I have any sympathy or affection for these people. They make my skin crawl. Defending the right to free speech is not the same thing as agreeing with them.

Hear, hear! Freedom of speech is not about protecting the rights of people with whom one agrees. It is about protecting the rights of those one deems most loathsome. And these people are indeed most loathsome. I know! Those bastards decided the publicity was right and protested right in front of NASA's main gate with vile, vile placards following the Columbia disaster. I (remotely) knew one of the astronauts who died on the Columbia.

 

[turbo]

That's because the majority of people that respond to me don't spend the time reading what I write, and then try to misrepresent my statements. If you so choose to do that, don't expect me to be nice to you in response: I have no more patience for it. FYI: you should reevaluate how you respond to my posts.

Says Cyrus, the ultimate supreme post-response mucky-muck.

Come on, USPSRMM! Catch a clue.

 

[MotoH]

Take it to PMs and quit derailing my thread.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Wasn't it derailed when somebody threatened to brutally murder someone? These last few pages are an embarrassment to the site.

 

[turbo]

Wasn't it derailed when somebody threatened to brutally murder someone? These last few pages are an embarrassment to the site.

Darned! Don't people have the right to threaten to murder someone? What'd the world coming to?

 

[Evo]

Closed by request.