Westboro Baptist ordered to pay 11mil!

Finally! Thank God

Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest - CNN.com

funny how they protest homosexuality but end up gettin effed in the aay in civil court lol

This case had better be overturned on appeal. The church members, while they may be bumpkin idiots, have a right to peacefully assemble publically, and that's what they did. Further, a verdict of $11million is obscene in ANY emotional distress case, in fact, to my mind, emotional distress shouldn't even be a tort, because it has no enumerable value.

Don't misunderstand, I think these people are beneath contempt for what they're doing (not because they're protesting soldiers, but because they're rubbing salt in the wounds of the family), and probably need to die in some horrible way, but Constitutionally they have the right to assemble.

I agree with aaron?

I'm going to go lay down for awhile...

This case had better be overturned on appeal. The church members, while they may be bumpkin idiots, have a right to peacefully assemble publically, and that's what they did. Further, a verdict of $11million is obscene in ANY emotional distress case, in fact, to my mind, emotional distress shouldn't even be a tort, because it has no enumerable value.

Don't misunderstand, I think these people are beneath contempt for what they're doing (not because they're protesting soldiers, but because they're rubbing salt in the wounds of the family), and probably need to die in some horrible way, but Constitutionally they have the right to assemble.

I , too, agree with Aaron, and it isn't the first time!

They have a right to assemble till they die, but do not have a right to slander. If you can find something in their hateful slander that is protected under the Constitution, I'll agree with you, but I don't think you'll be able to.

I wouldn't think screaming "your son died because he was a fag" or "god hates your son" is considered peaceful assembly

and 11 million seems high, but if you could put a price tag on the hurt having to bury your own child causes I would say any amount is reasonable. Maybe they should make this class action and split the money between all the families who've been hurt by them.

And remember the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from civil action for slander...

I hope the appeal is turned on its' head, and the verdict stands (of course)
There is the right to assemble and there is common decency and vs. "extremely poor taste".
And I wish the verdict award was "higher", say 20 mil., because that would send an even "clearer' message of what you shouldn't do vs. what you can do. I'd be for an amendment to the Constitution to ensure that what the congregation did, would never happen again. And all your accusations of me being subversive, obstructionist, or way left field...well, you know what you can do with them, before you even go there.

You're entitled to your opinion on this issue, and I encourage you to write your congressman and try to get an amendment through, that's one of the kickass things about representative democracy, it allows, and requires participation. However, until you manage to get the Constitution amended, Amendment I stands in favor of the defendants. This case was misajudicated, plain and simple.

The issue is whether or not the government has the right to censor them, and frankly, they don't. The first amendment clearly states that Congress "shall make no law", that's pretty definitive. Slander and libel, while morally wrong, are Constitutionally protected.

they're protected as in you have the right to say it, but you also have the right to sue somebody for slander. It's the difference between Criminal and Civil acts and that's constitutional. There shouldn't be any laws passed preventing them from speaking, but neither does the 1st amendment protect them from civil action if they slander somebody. Specifically it says "Congress shall pass no law" it says nothing to the effect of "Slander must be free of civil recourse"

nope. looks like justice prevailed...cheese to go with your "sour grapes"?

In order for a lawsuit to be legally valid a tort must have been committed. "Tort" is defined as "a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation. "

In the common law system alone, you're right, slander would be a civil wrong and thus be considered a tort, but we live under a constitutional common law system in which judicial action is restrained by formal boundaries. I was wrong when I said SCOTUS was against me here, as in 1974 in Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., SCOTUS found that negative opinions could not be considered libel, only falsified facts. Since slander is the spoken version of libel, we can conclude that the OPINIONS of the demonstrators, while demented, are not slander, and therefore, no tort exists. They claim that God hates America and is punishing us for our sins with the Iraq war, and they also hate gays. These are OPINIONS. Had they said, "Soldier X used to eat puppies, hiissssss", then there'd be a case, but they didn't.

This case was decided based on emotions rather than legal reasoning, and will almost certainly be appealed and overturned. Freedom of expression is non-negotiable in a free society, especially when the opinions being expressed are unpopular.