I can't say I agree with this judgement, as it seems like the same
tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center: use the legal system to
force your opponent into bankruptcy, because he says things you don't
like. The case itself was not a free-speech issue; rather, the
argument that won in court was that Phelps and his crew had
intentionally inflicted emotional distress and invaded privacy of the
family of a soldier killed in Iraq. However, if they had indeed caused
emotional distress to the father and his family (and they certainly
did), then you would think that a fair and impartial judge would award
enough damages to genuinely slap Phelps and make him remember
this...not crush him financially in such a manner that the Westboro
Baptist Church would have to sell their homes, all of their worldly
possessions, and all income they make for the rest of their lives to
pay it.
Is $11 million a fair payback for insults from a bunch of wackos no
one is going to believe anyway?
This seems more like the actions of a judge who wanted to stop Phelps
once and for all, rather than simply handle this one single incident.
It's the same way that Morris Dees stopped White Aryan Resistance,
Aryan Nations, and other hate groups.
The WBC's pickets and protests were legal, but the hurt they inflicted
on the soldier's family wasn't. They should be punished for their
hurtful actions, not for their legal ones.
Besides, Phelps' family manage their own law firm, and they know how
to use the legal system. There's no doubt this case will be appealed,
and we can only see what happens when other judges look at this case.
Remember how a fair, honest, and impartial judge handled Magdalen's
case, too.
--
The High Weirdness Project
http://www.modemac.com
|
