In an action that has outraged many citizens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ordered the family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder to pay the legal costs of the extremist Westboro Baptist Church, which picketed Snyder’s funeral and celebrated his death.
In 2006, the Fourth Circuit reversed judgments against Westboro, a decision that I agree with on first amendment grounds. The Supreme Court has taken up the case.
The Church has announced that it will use the money to fund more protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers and Marines where Church members wave signs reading “You’re going to hell,” “God hates you” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”
The Fourth Circuit ordered the family to pay more than $16,000 in costs requested by Westboro for copies of motions, briefs and appendices, according to court documents.
The Church members view the entire matter in more apocalyptic rather than procedural terms. Phelps, one of its leaders and lawyers, stated:
“When the Supreme Court unanimously upholds the 4th Circuit, it’s going to put this country in a rage, and we will be expelled,” she said. “But whenever it was time for an epic event in the Bible, the thing that happened right before is the prophets were removed from the land, and that’s what’s going to happen to us. … We’re going to sprint to the end of this race.”
Rule 39 states:
Rule 39. Costs
(a) Against Whom Assessed. The following rules apply unless the law provides or the court orders otherwise:
(1)if an appeal is dismissed, costs are taxed against the appellant, unless the parties agree
otherwise;
(2)if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against the appellant;
(3)if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee;
(4)if a judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified, or vacated, costs are taxed only as the court orders.
I disagree with the assignment of such costs. For years, some jurists and politicians have been moving toward an “English rule” where losers pay costs in litigation. It is a rule that has a decidedly negative impact on public interest and consumer lawsuits. This is not as extreme as the English rule but it creates a chilling effect for any family that wants to be heard in such a case. It is particularly troubling when the family prevailed at trial in a clearly non-frivolous case. While I believe the Church has free speech rights in conducting these protests, I do not see the wisdom in the awarding of costs as a general rule in such cases against a private — as opposed to a governmental — litigant.
For the full story, click here.
Yes but you didn’t demonstrate any issue with them other than to call names.
Bender flats:
“Try reading my words again and pointing out the area with them you are having difficulties with.”
***************
I quoted them for you.
FFLeo:
“By allowing them to express their views unencumbered, others can expose their agendas and make choices to oppose such religious fanatics at every turn henceforth by whatever acceptable societal measures available to them.”
*******************
No one would argue to censor their views, but circumscribing the location and timing is perfectly constitutional. Just as you may impose reasonable restrictions on assembly and speech by means of permits, you can certainly allow these pernicious views at times and places away from the assembled mourners. One does not have the right to speak to captive listeners, as they too have the right to be free from speech they do not wish to hear. Think the Army would permit jihadist musings in the quadriplegia unit of Walter Reed? Only the government has to listen to both the sane and the insane, mourners should not be so burdened when they have more than enough to suffice.
Sorry Mr Leo, your comment appeared after I made mine. My comments were for the one before you who called me a schizophrenic.
In each of my comments I clearly draw the distinction between the glimpse into the life of the Phelps family and their religious fanaticism.
These people live normal, everyday lives when not functioning in their church. They attend public schools and universities, many of them including Shirley Phelps are Attorney’s. So the film shows us a stark contrast between their every day lives and their religious fanaticism.
Try reading my words again and pointing out the area with them you are having difficulties with.
Mespo wrote,
“What public good was advanced by Westboro hate society?”
_________________________________
I see an abundance of public good by allowing the “Westboro hate Society” the full complement of free speech rights. By allowing them to express their views unencumbered, others can expose their agendas and make choices to oppose such religious fanatics at every turn henceforth by whatever acceptable societal measures available to them. What rational person would want to join such a group, even it was not a religious congregation? What decent person would want to associate or support people who would spew such added misery during a time of immeasurable grief and human finality, such as at a funeral? The adults in this cult are unreachable; however, those young people singing in the previous video might be swayed to abandon those beliefs from others’ free speech rights, which are just as unencumbered as are theirs.
A simple comment by Professor Turley during one of his Olbermann appearances regarding free speech was that we want people like this to speak up so they show up on the radar screen. I agree with that statement and what greater manner of effecting changes against radical groups than by allowing every group the opportunity of self-exposés through unfettered free speech allowable to all. Subjectively and selectively limiting the free speech rights of unthinking crowds or individuals through measures based on emotion—regardless of how humanly justified our abhorrence to that speech is—will only serve to dilute the rights of all thinking persons under that all-important First Amendment.
Benders Flats:
“They live normal lives, are extremely intelligent and well educated and make good money holding down normal jobs. They’re even somewhat likable. The girls are sweet, friendly and intelligent. The men you don’t see as much of, and some seem a little like the neocons but when that ole Fred Phelps starts railing on Billy Graham, “splitting hell wide open” you almost believe him. You definitely believe he believes it. But all in all the family members seem like pretty well adjusted everyday folks. ”
cf.,”The BBC documentary was not flattering …. In fact it received recognition for its stark view into the lives of the Phelps family.”
******************
Then one must conclude either that one or both of your reviews is erroneous, or you are schizophrenic.
And I must concur with Professor Turley and not with you. This is protected speech.
If you are petty enough to want to hate them that is your problem and places you pretty much on their level, as any reasonable person would merely pity them. But the desire to silence them demonstrates a flawed understanding of the 1st Amendment protections.
The BBC documentary was not flattering nor was there swarmy PR, which indicates you did not watch it. In fact it received recognition for its stark view into the lives of the Phelps family.
Had you have watched it you’d see that the Phelps family was presented as being not only somewhat normal in their day to day lives but pathetic and possessing a warped sense of reality and morality in their church lives.
“So this is an interesting one. On face value its easy to hate them and want to silence them but when we look a little deeper we see that the situation is much more complex than that.”
***************
So complex, in fact, that once you are done wallowing in the smarmy PR done by the BBC, you actually believe again that “it’s easy to hate them and want to silence them.” Now, I need a shower in Holy Water to clean off the stench of these “pretty much normal people outside of their fundamentalist approach to the bible.” Which is, of course, like saying that Jim Jones and his followers were pretty much normal people except for their fundamentalist beliefs, and their undying affinity for grape Kool-Ade.
The wikipedia article on this group says that the leader, Grandpa, was a fairly distinguished civil rights lawyer at one point, but went off the rails. He sued a court reporter for not delivering a transcript on time (the late delivery had no impact on any of his cases) and perjured himself at the trial. He seems to have just gone nuts at the trial of this poor woman. Part of the KS Sup. Ct’s opinion is in the wikipedia article. He was disbarred for perjury in Kansas. Wikipedia article says he was also disbarred in several federal courts for filing frivolous lawsuits, I think. Even if you’re disbarred you can represent yourself. (I know, “a fool for a client…” Double fool if you’re disbarred and represent yourself.) Some of his children were/are also lawyers and were also disbarred.
As far as the comment about how “normal” they are, how normal is it to go to a soldier’s funeral with a sign that says “God Loves IED’s”?
For anyone interested at a real look at the Phelps and their daily lives the BBC documentary I referred to in my comments is available courtesy of the good folks over at Atheist Nation.
http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00260/atheist/the-most-hated-family-in-america/
“Spending hours and days and weeks of your life screaming “God Hates Fags” at schools, funerals and assorted public events is well adjusted? ”
Empire cookie your comments imply I was defending them. I was not.
Also your response is misrepresenting my statement. You omit the fact that I clearly stated “outside of their fundamentalist approach to the bible.”
Please do not misrepresent my statements. Thank you.
not really
They seem like “well adjusted everyday folks” and they “believe their message is one of kindness, not hate”? Oy vey.
Spending hours and days and weeks of your life screaming “God Hates Fags” at schools, funerals and assorted public events is well adjusted? I don’t think so. And they might believe that their message is not about hate, but then some people believe the earth is flat. What they believe to be true might be interesting from a sociological or psychological perspective, but sometimes things are just objectively false. God Hates Fags. Not a lot of love in that.
Here’s a taste of these well adjusted people – re-posted for those who did not see it a few weeks ago:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWMxUsTjhY0&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
The Westboro Baptist Church is not a commercial organization although like many churches they do incorporate. The church is made up primarily of friends and family of the Phelps family, with the patriarch of the family, Fred Phelps being their leader.
If you’ve seen the movie done about the family by a British journalist and the BBC called “The Most Hated Family in America” you’ll be surprised to find that the Phelp’s are pretty much normal people outside of their fundamentalist approach to the bible. They live normal lives, are extremely intelligent and well educated and make good money holding down normal jobs. They’re even somewhat likable. The girls are sweet, friendly and intelligent. The men you don’t see as much of, and some seem a little like the neocons but when that ole Fred Phelps starts railing on Billy Graham, “splitting hell wide open” you almost believe him. You definitely believe he believes it. But all in all the family members seem like pretty well adjusted everyday folks.
In fact, it may surprise many here to know that many of the leaders are also Attorneys. Law is the preferred profession in the family and many follow their parents in that course and become practicing attorneys. In fact the family fights its own battles in court, often successfully through their own chartered law firm.
After watching the movie done by the BBC you sort of get what they’re about.
1. They believe their message is one of kindness, not hate (but it also is one of condemnation to our souls if we don’t heed it).
2. They believe they’re just doing what the prophets in the Bible did, i.e. calling their fellow countrymen to repentance. 3. They believe the bible on a fundamental level and thus all commandments are set in stone (yet they like most heralds of other peoples sins seem to pick and choose which ones they themselves obey)
4. They feel the end is imminent. They feel that not warning others is hateful, and that warning them is loving.
5. They are not concerned with feelings of others, or distress. They see distress and discomfort as necessary to moving the soul to repentance.
6. They believe things in this life are temporal and thus don’t matter except for how we respond to them.They are focused on the afterlife and the effects of temporal sin on it.
7. They believe that it is good when God punishes his children (us) therefore they rejoice in the sufferings of others including death.
8. They believe the war in Iraq was corrupt and that God sent corrupt advisers to Bush to deceive him into leading America into a corrupt war, in order to punish America for her sins.
9. They believe homosexuality is one of those sins but the biggest one they focus on is pride. They feel Americans are spoiled boastful brats and that our pride will be our downfall.
10. They do not believe in violence. They honor the law and keep their protests usually out of sight and earshot of the funerals they’re protesting (although often funeral goers must past by or through them to get to the funeral).
I have to agree with Professor Turley that their speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. When we see the kid on the video being hit by a soda from a passing car of thugs its shocking to find yourself feeling bad for the kid and even them for a moment. They might be preaching hate but they don’t use brute force or violence so they actually come out looking better for it when others use violence on them, which apparently has happened many times, including being shot at.
So this is an interesting one. On face value its easy to hate them and want to silence them but when we look a little deeper we see that the situation is much more complex than that.
Just beat them to within an inch of their lives once or twice and they will stop.
As an atheist and a military veteran, I doubly despise what the Westbrook Baptist Church did because I also lost my best friend—my brother—during the Viet Nam war. After my brother’s body returned home, the news media swarmed my home adding to my Mother’s considerable anguish over losing her eldest son while fearful that I might be next because of my chances of going to Viet Nam that following spring. The press hounded my parents for information because my brother was killed in an area the U.S. was not supposed to be engaged. At the time, I hated what the reporters did to my parents in their time of greatest grief of losing a child. However, as I grew older, I understood their right to ask the questions that they did and at the time they did.
Therefore, no matter how despicable were the things that the Westbrook religious fanatics did at the funeral, they have that right and to deny them otherwise is to lessen First Amendment free speech rights for us all. That is something we must never allow to occur. Yes, there are likely harassment statutes that might apply but what occurred must never fall under a violation of free speech.
Bill O’Reilly gave $15000 to this church.
North of the 49th, “costs” include fees and disbursements (ie what you folks are refering to as ‘costs’). I don’t think it would be too difficult to pursuade a court that no costs should be ordered in a similar case here.
Even where costs are awarded, you don’t get your actual costs – generally, you can only claim about 50% of your real costs and in most cases you get less than that, often far less. A court will fix costs based on what seems fair and reasonable in the circumstances, having regard to the complexity of the case etc.
But the costs/disbursements described in this Westboro case seem high – 50 cents a page is double what can be claimed up here, and a court can set it even lower. That’s seems really inflated.
I agree with vlf2112 it should be paid in pennies.