Dead Marine's Father Sues Anti-Gay Protesters

[The Straight Story]

Dead Marine's Father Sues Anti-Gay Protesters

POSTED: 5:57 pm EDT June 5, 2006
UPDATED: 6:21 pm EDT June 5, 2006

GREENBELT, Md. -- The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters from a fundamentalist Kansas church filed an invasion-of-privacy suit against the demonstrators Monday.

It is believed to be the first lawsuit brought by a soldier's family against Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., whose members routinely demonstrate at military funerals around the country, including several in Oklahoma.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, is seeking unspecified damages. The younger Snyder, 20, died March 3 after an accident in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was buried in Westminster, Md.

"We think it's a case we can win because anyone's funeral is private," Snyder lawyer Sean Summers said. "You don't have a right to interrupt someone's private funeral."

http://www.local6.com/news/9324216/detail.html

[Bluzmann57]

1. Good for Mr. Snyder

Someone has to take a stand against these freaks and do so without limiting their right to free speech. This just may be the way to do it.

[MadHound]

2. Sorry, but as much as I hate Phelps, and feel for this father

Constitutionally speaking he's going to lose his case, and rightfully so. People still have the right to assemble on public property and protest, as dispicable as these fuckwad's protest is.

If this father wins, then all of our protest rights are threatened. Slipper slope people, slippery slope.

[karlrschneider]

3. I agree with you on principle but this -particular- litigation might not

necessarily establish a broad precedent (if it were successful), it could be adjudicated to specifically only to funerals, I would think. I wonder if there might be a way for a class action to get an injunction against this gang, something like a general protective order, as it were. As far as I know, they're the only bunch doing the sort of hideous stuff they do...

obligatory caveat: IANAL
;-)

[MadHound]

5. "If it could adjucated to specifically funerals"

Trouble is then Phelps would make other trouble, in fact they already are. Here in Missouri we jumped right on the ban Phelps bandwagon early on, banning protests at military funerals. Well, Phelps took a new tactic, he started doing his protest schtick the night before, at the memorical service. And already there's being noised about a new law to prevent protesting at memorial services. If that passes, I imagine that Phelps will move his act to protesting the motorcades carrying the remains home. So people will enact a law banning protesting motorcades. And WHOOPS, some much for protesting the Presidents' inagural motorcade, like some fine folks did in '01 and '05.

And even then Phelps wouldn't stop. He's a stupid ass, but he knows the law and is on a mission. And sadly, the more we try to legislate him out of business, the more we're cutting off our own rights and freedoms.

Personally I say just beat the living shit out of him whereever he turns up, but then I'd get arrested and sued.

There isn't an easy answer on this one, sorry.

[karlrschneider]

7. You're right, no easy solution.

I sure do like your idea about beating the SOB senseless though. For his and my sake both, I hope we never cross paths. :evilgrin:

[MadHound]

9. I have a few buddies in Iraq right now

And God forbid, if one of them buys the farm and this SOB turns up at their funeral, well, hell, I've spent a few nights in jail before for a good cause.:evilgrin:

[karlrschneider]

17. I spent a night in the pokey in Minneapolis in 1968 (69?) from a

Viet Nam war protest. Oddly enough it never showed up in the official records so 'officially' I've never been arrested. :D

[Skelington]

14. I agree, no easy answer, I do have to wonder about the obituary,

I have to wonder if after an obituary is published, is it still a private affair? Just curious, but if the obituary disclaimed the event as "private, to family and friends" could that produce a workable angle in a lawsuit?

[MemphisTiger]

4. I agree, as much as I hate other hate groups like the

Klan and Phelps, they do have the right under our constitution to peacefully assemble. It may be in poor taste, but we don't get to choose which groups get to assemble an which ones don't.

[roguevalley]

6. I don't know about the right to assemble and inflict willful distress.

there may be an angle there, rather like shouting fire in a theater. you don't have unlimited rights to inflict distress constitutionally.

[MadHound]

8. How does one define distress?

I'm sure it was quite stressful for Reagan and his wife to observe me by the side of the road, flipping them the big double bird as their motorcade went by.

Doing a specific action, like shouting fire in a theatre, works well because it is so specific. However the use of relative terms like "distressful" opens up a whole can of worms. What one person thinks is exercising their free speech, another can be found to whom said speech is distressful.

Like I said earlier, I don't like this man, nor am I defending his actions. But trying to legislate him out of existence is only going to cause all of us to lose our rights.

[The Straight Story]

11. Actually, I could see this working:

They are encouraging the death of troops, so they are aiding the terrorists/enemy.

Aid and comfort and all that jazz. Throw em in gitmo.

Seriously though, I think we should be out in force protesting at his home and church with signs like 'I just escaped from a home for the criminally insane, go ahead and piss me off asshole'....'I got an IED in my pants, walk over here boy'

[Clark2008]

15. But funeral homes and cemetaries are privately owned

They're not public property, per se.

Sure, most anyone can drive into a cemetery, but the owner - or corporation - has the right to restrict visitors.

[MadHound]

16. You are correct, but Phelps and his merry band of trolls

Do their protesting on public property, the public sidewalks and roads surrounding a cemetary or funeral home.

[ComerPerro]

10. They will probably make a law banning protests

at military funerals.

Cause no one gives a shit when Phelps shows up at the funerals of victims of hate crimes

[DPvE]

12. Not so sure there is a 1st Amendment problem here

Though I do not want to see Phelps' right to protest threatened, I'm not sure this is a First Amendment issue. It's a tricky area, but the suit apparently does not seek to prevent Phelps' group from protesting, nor does it seek damages based simply on the content of their speech. If I understand the issue correctly, they are seeking damages for invasion of privacy - that is, for unreasonably bringing attention and focus to a private, family service. The tort of invasion of privacy is difficult to define, varies by state, and includes a number of variations (public disclosure of private facts, "false light" claims, "unreasonable intrusion into the seclusion of another") not all of which are recognized in every jurisdiction. Nonetheless, assuming there is a factual basis and legal for the claim, the courts would likely analyze this case in the same manner that they analyze libel and slander cases - that is, if the victim is a "public figure," he or she has to show that the defendant acted with a "willful disregard for the truth" (or, more accurately in the invasion of privacy context, a "willful disregard" for the victim's privacy rights); but, where the injured party is a private individual (which is the case here), the standard of culpability is lower - that is, the plaintiff has to prove the defendant acted negligently, as opposed to willfully. This is the famous, or infamous, New York Times v. Sullivan rule enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970's. The idea is that the First Amendment does not bar libel and slander claims - and, by extension, privacy torts - where the victim is a private individual; but, where the victim is a public figure, the First Amendment requires proof of malice or willfulness. Anyway, that's my understanding ...

[DPvE]

13. One More Thought

Lest you think I'm soft on the First Amendment, I'm not. Perhaps the First Amendment should bar, or at least limit, all tort claims based on speech (or where speech would be impacted), but as I understand it, that is not the state of the law.

More to the point, as painful as it may be for the families of our soldiers and marines who died in Iraq, I would rather have idiots like Phelps spew their hate publicly. Sure, they may attract a few more jerks to their cause, but those people were already hateful jerks to begin with - and, the more likely reaction to Phelps and his mob is complete and utter revulsion. I think we need to shine a very bright spot-light on hate groups like this.