Snyder v. Phelps: The nose of a very frightening camel
From the Topeka Capital-Journal...
A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday ordered liens on the Westboro Baptist Church building and the Phelps-Chartered Law office.
If the case presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett is upheld by an appeals court, the church, at 3701 S.W. 12th, and the office building, at 1414 S.W. Topeka Blvd., could be obtained by the court and sold, with the proceeds being applied toward $5 million in damages Bennett imposed on church members for picketing a military funeral....
The $5 million penalty is the result of a lawsuit filed against three of the church's principals by Albert Snyder, the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, whose funeral was picketed by church members.
The senior Snyder contended the picketing caused emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
First of all, let me say that the fake Westboro cult, and their fake pastors are some of the lowest vermin ever to claim the title "human". What they do is disgusting, evil and offensive to all but a few crazed loonies like them.
But I find this lawsuit and the decision very unsettling. The steel that makes a scalpel also makes the murder's knife.
From Catholic Online...
In 1998, after a string of 27 lawsuits by organizations such as the National Organization for Women, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, [Randall] Terry filed bankruptcy and lost his home. In 1991, he closed Operation Rescue.
He filed for bankruptcy rather than having to pay any money to Planned Parenthood after they "won" a $1.6 million lawsuit against him. This was part of the infamous NOW v. Scheidler case that dragged on 20 years, and went to the Supreme Court three times. Many of the defendants (including Terry) settled due to the financial burden of defending themselves, and therefore are unable to recoup losses after the SC finally closed the case in favor of the Pro-Life activists. NOW, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU use the court process to extort money from their ideological enemies, knowing that regardless of the merits of the case, those with the deepest pockets almost always win.
I'm not alone in finding the Snyder decision a perilous precedent. Eugene Volokh, UCLA law professor and blogger wrote...
It seems to me that this tort, as applied to speech, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. If narrowed by courts to cover only conduct and otherwise unprotected speech (such as reckless falsehoods, threats, "fighting words"..., and other speech that falls within the exceptions to First Amendment protection), it would be permissible. But until it is so narrowed, it is unconstitutional....
Moreover, allowing the punishment of speech under such a vague standard would deter even more speech than would actually be punished.
If the unscrupulous methods NOW, PP and the ACLU use to extort money from people are wrong, we shouldn't be applauding its use on those we disagree with, especially when it widens the doorway for its continued use against good people.
Posted by Danny Carlton at April 4, 2008 7:38 AM