Final Insult
No matter what you think about the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, or war in general, I am sure that you would consider picketing of military funerals obnoxious and reprehensible. Yet our First Amendment protects the right to speak freely and "peaceably assemble", so the government cannot restrain people from behaving in this way.
But can those who have come to bury their dead collect monetary damages from funeral protesters, if the activity has caused them "emotional distress?" The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that will decide this question.
After Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq on March 3, 2006, his funeral in Westminster, Maryland, was picketed by Rev. Fred Phelps and several of his followers who contend that "God Hates the USA" for tolerating homosexuality. In addition to placards with that message, others read "Fag Troops" and the like. Moreover, Phelps claimed on his website that the soldier's father Albert Snyder had "raised him for the devil." (1)
Albert Snyder sued Phelps in Maryland and was awarded a judgment of $5 million for invasion of privacy and "intentional infliction of emotional distress." The Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the verdict on First Amendment grounds, noting that the signs did not specifically refer to plaintiff Snyder or his son. (1)
How should the Court rule, and how will it rule?
Although I believe that defendant Phelps and his associates have the right to express their crackpot views in public, I also believe that they bear the responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their words and actions. Just as the protection of free speech does not bar victims of libel and slander from recovering damages, so too should it not bar claims based on emotional distress. The efforts of Phelps et al. to protest as close as they could to the funeral and burial indicates that the the protests were deliberately targeting those activities. Even if the signs and slogans did not mention the plaintiff by name, that kind of activity at a time of bereavement should have been recognized as causing distress to the family of the deceased, and therefore should incur legal consequences. The website comment is also libelous, even if too absurd to be taken seriously.
The jury in Maryland originally awarded the plaintiff $10.9 million , but the judge reduced it to $5 million. Even the latter figure is way too high, in my opinion. The plaintiff does deserve compensation for emotional distress, but I see no reason that the compensation should be millions of dollars. I would expect that the Supreme Court will reverse the 4th Circuit on the question of liability for damages, but will send the case back to the trial court for reconsideration of the size of the award. Once the defendants know that they will have to pay for their outrageous conduct, I predict that the parties will negotiate a settlement of the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) McClatchy News Service, March 9, 2010.
But can those who have come to bury their dead collect monetary damages from funeral protesters, if the activity has caused them "emotional distress?" The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that will decide this question.
After Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq on March 3, 2006, his funeral in Westminster, Maryland, was picketed by Rev. Fred Phelps and several of his followers who contend that "God Hates the USA" for tolerating homosexuality. In addition to placards with that message, others read "Fag Troops" and the like. Moreover, Phelps claimed on his website that the soldier's father Albert Snyder had "raised him for the devil." (1)
Albert Snyder sued Phelps in Maryland and was awarded a judgment of $5 million for invasion of privacy and "intentional infliction of emotional distress." The Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the verdict on First Amendment grounds, noting that the signs did not specifically refer to plaintiff Snyder or his son. (1)
How should the Court rule, and how will it rule?
Although I believe that defendant Phelps and his associates have the right to express their crackpot views in public, I also believe that they bear the responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their words and actions. Just as the protection of free speech does not bar victims of libel and slander from recovering damages, so too should it not bar claims based on emotional distress. The efforts of Phelps et al. to protest as close as they could to the funeral and burial indicates that the the protests were deliberately targeting those activities. Even if the signs and slogans did not mention the plaintiff by name, that kind of activity at a time of bereavement should have been recognized as causing distress to the family of the deceased, and therefore should incur legal consequences. The website comment is also libelous, even if too absurd to be taken seriously.
The jury in Maryland originally awarded the plaintiff $10.9 million , but the judge reduced it to $5 million. Even the latter figure is way too high, in my opinion. The plaintiff does deserve compensation for emotional distress, but I see no reason that the compensation should be millions of dollars. I would expect that the Supreme Court will reverse the 4th Circuit on the question of liability for damages, but will send the case back to the trial court for reconsideration of the size of the award. Once the defendants know that they will have to pay for their outrageous conduct, I predict that the parties will negotiate a settlement of the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) McClatchy News Service, March 9, 2010.
Labels: funeral protest
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 1:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home