For my part, I think the intentional infliction of emotional distress is independently sufficient justification for the verdict. I’m not a litigator, so I don’t know whether the jury had to break down their damages by cause of action (I imagine they didn’t).

Would I choose $11 million? No, but the number is largely drawn from thin air and is the consensus/compromise of 12 people. There is no great way of quantifying damage to a person’s quality of life, so the number is usually a proxy for the juries level of sympathy for the victim and antipathy for the tortfeasor. In general, in Pennsylvania (and I imagine other states), juries in large counties are more willing to find for plaintiffs and to give higher awards than juries in rural counties.

Fred is a sorry, sad, sick and twisted individual whose entire conflicted and shrunken soul can be viewed through the lens of his longtime web site, godhatesfags.com

I understand wanting to protect free speech rights, but this issue is complicated precisely BECAUSE Fred’s intent is to inflict the greatest amount of harm possible. He’s gone after veterans because it widens his audience. See him in action just ONCE and you’ll want to act like the authoritarian former mayor of New York City.

I note how you ratchet up the level of persecution. Not as I said, an hour before, an hour after, or out of earshot and eyeshot. No, to make your point you have to put up some barbed wire (I don’t consider police dogs as part of crowd control to be oppressive, so that linkage is silly to me). I like the “Free Speech Zone” concept–very faux-Orwellian.

I also note how you don’t even attempt to dispute the half-dozen examples of other moments when you don’t get to say exactly *what* you want exactly *how* you want exactly *when* you want. I could give you a bunch more–I can’t put up a billboard in my front lawn because of the land use ordinances, Cristo can’t put flags up in Central park without the permission of the city, Morganna the kissing bandit can’t run of the field during a baseball game, you can’t, in many places, put an adult bookstore next door to a public school.

The Phelpses have been told that for a few minutes at a specific place they can’t have their way. By way of contrast, the man who won this lawsuit has no chance to give his son a decent funeral. That is why this is easy.

Then *he* sues. For big bucks.

What comes around, goes around.

Of course, theocrat haters like Phelps have no understanding of Karma. But that’s their problem.

Personally, I cheer ther ruling. Absolute unrestricted personal freedom is actually an impediment to the availability of *liberty* to the masses. This is why the current ‘Libertarians’ are self-misidentified. They’re about freedom at all costs. This makes them – say it with me – ANARCHISTS.

You see, that’s the problem – nobody said you can’t have your say – but over there, in the Free Speech Zone. behind the barbed wire and police dogs, and not over here.

This isn’t an easy subject…

There is something about making a mockery of a funeral that is the essence of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Part of the reason civil libertarians have gotten a bad name is that they pick nits for no other reason than a mindbogglingly simplistic conception of “free speech.” I believe a lot of that is publicity, since there is a romanticized notion of speaking truth to power that gets contributions. After all, the unglamorous, everyday moments when normal people are denied their civil rights outside the view of a TV camera isn’t worthy of the ACLU’s time (or that of all the new “civil libertarians” concerned about anything that threatens to limit how corporations/unions can manipulate political campaigns).

How far away from the funeral home would they have to be in order for privacy not to be invaded?

Far enough away that they weren’t visible or audible to someone attending the funeral.

Would it be invaded if their protest was on an internet forum instead of a sidewalk?

No. A mourner isn’t forced to view any particular internet forum (or radio or TV station, if they choose to broadcast their protest.)

I did not intend that. The practical limits of free speech are very important, and the questions I posed are very simple examples of the problem.

Bennett said the jurors must decide “whether the defendant’s actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection.”

There is an intersection between the rights of free speech and the right to privacy. From the Fox quote I think the judge gets it wrong. The statements being offensive should not be the issues, but rather if the mourners (all of them) where denied the right to a private, quite and dignified funeral. There is a reasonableness that we all recognize when police break up a noisy party, it is the same principle. Just as there are guidelines for parties there is a need, it seems, for one for funeral protests.

Missouri seems to have some already, although the ACLU disagrees:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html

“The law bans picketing and protests “in front of or about” any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. Offenders can face fines and jail time.”

Personally, I hope one day that we all can quietly and respectfully protest Fred Phelps.

All info via wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church