http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7072404.stm



A church whose members cheered a soldier's death as "punishment" for US tolerance of homosexuality has been told to pay $10.9m (£5.2m) in damages.



The Westboro Baptist Church was taken to court by the father of Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder, a marine who died serving in Iraq in March 2006.

The church cited its constitutional right to free speech in its defence.

But Albert Snyder's lawyer urged the jury to ensure the damages were high enough to stop the church campaigning. Members of the church - based in Topeka, Kansas - have denounced homosexuality for years, initially targeting the funerals of Aids victims.

A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict against a fundamentalist church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.



Albert Snyder sued the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.



The federal jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/



Phelps sisters, both attorneys, promise the verdict will be reversed on appeal. Will it be and should it be on First Amendment grounds?

"Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."" That is just despicable, regardless of if it is constitutional or not.

Agreed, their behaviour is despicable but the U.S. constitution doesn't/shouldn't make value judgements.

I agree, limiting anyones rights hurts everyone.

A big chunk of me thinks they got what they deserve (well actually they deserve to have their own children die in the military, but I don't really wish that on anyone), but the rational, law related part agrees that they didn't really break any laws, except for maybe demonstrating w/o a permit (I don't know if they had one).



I know there is at least one psycho for everything, but I'm horrified that these people exist.

I despise what they say, but they have every right to say it. We can't go picking and choosing when to uphold the Constitution.

Fred Phelps is a disgusting, repulsive excuse for a human being. The hatred him and his followers spew is appalling and sickening. The fact that they raise their children into believing their "beliefs" is beyond disturbing. I am glad the grieving father won the lawsuit. I can't even imagine what it was like for him to bury his child while the church members held up signs saying he deserved to die.

surely, if fred phelps has the right to do this, then I should have the right to stand on a street corner and shout out his bank details, all day.



If I knew them.

I am not a lawyer but this was a CIVIL lawsuit not a CRIMINAL one; there is a difference. I think in the civil lawsuit the jury judges not whether the defendant broke any criminal laws but whether they caused harm to another person. A criminal lawsuit is brought on by the state; a civil lawsuit is brought on by the harmed person. In this case, the picketers harmed the grieving family's right to privacy, hence they are guilty in the civil lawsuit.

Wow, I want to sue everyone that's hurt my feelings now.

What a vile, disgusting human being.

i don't care what the hell those people do, but have some tact for christ sakes, that's a soldier. give it a rest.

There's a difference between free speech and harassment. It's hard for me to be objective in this case, though.