Thread: Marine Dad Ordered to Pay Legal Fees

Ok, I'm probably going to anger some folks and say the Judge did what was right. Take emotion out of it and look at the legality and you will see the Judge did what was the norm for these type of cases. Westboro was using their rights of free speech and had to hire a fairly good law team in order to fight the case this dad was bringing to court. They have the right to free speech, even though we might not all like it, just like the KKK can hold rallies etc.

That said I am sure there are enough groups around that support the dad to where he will probably not have to pay much and they will help him out. In fact I would urge all of your to look into that if you feel he was wronged and help the dude out.


Now my opinion of what Westboro is doing is the same as the rest of you, that it is disgraceful and morally reprehensible and honestly has nothing to do with what they are protesting. I do like the biker and patriot groups who actually stand in front of these folks as the procession goes by, it is a good retort to what westboro does.


This is how you react, support the Patriot Guard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZbix25Oy0


Nothing illegal with what these guys do since they are invited onto the property and block the Westboro folks. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean we have to listen.

That video blake... you have no idea how much satisfaction that gives me.

Originally Posted by jmw_man

Does the dad have to pay back the 10.9 million? If so the I wouldn't care about the 16,000...

Originally Posted by Toker

WBC, horrid people, sad for the kids, etc etc...
So the dad get 10.9 million, the courts reversed the ruling, and then ordered him to pay the 16k for legal fees accumulated by WBC?
What's the legal reasoning ?

legal reasoning, wouldn't that be freedom of speech?

I think after the Supreme Court gets a hold of this, you will find that Freedom of Speech would not be covered here. There are too many aspects of other Constitutional freedoms as well as Activities protected by precedent that will trump the Right to be an Asshole. Religious Freedoms, Privacy Rights for Non-Public venue, Venerated Objects / Ceremonies / and Occasions - which are protected the same way that the Courts upheld disrupting the function of a Government Meeting, Office, or Activity could be criminal.

You will find the Court supporting the Privacy of a funeral of ANY type due to Religious Freedom and Private Venue precedent - The Court will protect the funeral of military personnel the sameway they protect dignitaries and the public forum - in that certain disruptions are disrespectful and harmful to the public good and the keeping of public order.

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Nothing illegal with what these guys do since they are invited onto the property and block the Westboro folks. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean we have to listen.

Right on

Originally Posted by kilo33

Originally Posted by jmw_man

Does the dad have to pay back the 10.9 million? If so the I wouldn't care about the 16,000...

Originally Posted by Toker

WBC, horrid people, sad for the kids, etc etc...
So the dad get 10.9 million, the courts reversed the ruling, and then ordered him to pay the 16k for legal fees accumulated by WBC?
What's the legal reasoning ?

legal reasoning, wouldn't that be freedom of speech?

I think after the Supreme Court gets a hold of this, you will find that Freedom of Speech would not be covered here. There are too many aspects of other Constitutional freedoms as well as Activities protected by precedent that will trump the Right to be an Asshole. Religious Freedoms, Privacy Rights for Non-Public venue, Venerated Objects / Ceremonies / and Occasions - which are protected the same way that the Courts upheld disrupting the function of a Government Meeting, Office, or Activity could be criminal.

You will find the Court supporting the Privacy of a funeral of ANY type due to Religious Freedom and Private Venue precedent - The Court will protect the funeral of military personnel the same way they protect dignitaries and the public forum - in that certain disruptions are disrespectful and harmful to the public good and the keeping of public order.

They never enter private property and only are on the funeral procession route so it wouldn't have the merit. Constitutional Rights trump pretty much everything, if you throw religion in there too you can basically say whatever you want, so long as it is on public property. Same with the KKK and why those have not been made 'illegal'.

Find me legislation that says otherwise and I will admit I am not 100%, but you will find that you are allowed to say what you want, which is a great part of this country.

This doesn't mean I support their view nor the KKK, just saying that as citizens they have the right to say what they want.

Currently, the venerated ceremony i.e. commemoration, funeral, etc. of any Dignitary in the State of Texas is protected by Texas Penal Code Sec. 38.13. HINDERING PROCEEDINGS BY DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally hinders an official proceeding by noise or violent or tumultuous behavior or disturbance.
(b) A person commits an offense if he recklessly hinders an official proceeding by noise or violent or tumultuous behavior or disturbance and continues after explicit official request to desist.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Added by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 833, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 181, ch. 89, Sec. 1, 2, eff. Aug. 29, 1977; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4641, ch. 800, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 145, Sec. 2, eff. Aug. 26, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 54, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 389, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Sec. 42.02. RIOT. (a) For the purpose of this section, "riot" means the assemblage of seven or more persons resulting in conduct which:

(1) creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons;

(2) substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services; or

(3) by force, threat of force, or physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly participates in a riot.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the assembly was at first lawful and when one of those assembled manifested an intent to engage in conduct enumerated in Subsection (a), the actor retired from the assembly.

(d) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that another who was a party to the riot has been acquitted, has not been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense or of a different type or class of offense, or is immune from prosecution.

(e) Except as provided in Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

(f) An offense under this section is an offense of the same classification as any offense of a higher grade committed by anyone engaged in the riot if the offense was:

(1) in the furtherance of the purpose of the assembly; or

(2) an offense which should have been anticipated as a result of the assembly.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.





Sec. 42.03. OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAY OR OTHER PASSAGEWAY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without legal privilege or authority, he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(1) obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, elevator, aisle, hallway, entrance, or exit to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, regardless of the means of creating the obstruction and whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others; or

(2) disobeys a reasonable request or order to move issued by a person the actor knows to be or is informed is a peace officer, a fireman, or a person with authority to control the use of the premises:

(A) to prevent obstruction of a highway or any of those areas mentioned in Subdivision (1); or

(B) to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire, riot, or other hazard.

(b) For purposes of this section, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

================================================== ============================
All these above have aspects in the legislationwhich have successfully protected many military funerals in Texas, there have been Constitutional challenges for these statutes being used to get rid of "freedom of speech" at the public courthouse / city hall / and other government functions. I think that when the dust settles you will find that Military Funerals will wind up being protected as Official proceedings, just like a State Funeral

I don't see anything that specifically says they cannot protest at a funeral procession, it just limits where they can do it. If they get a ticket for 'obstructing a roadway' or what have you it is one thing, but to say that they cannot speak their mind on public property is one thing the Constitution will uphold.

I'm all for being picky about when these folks violate any other law, but their right to free speech still allows them to do this on public property.

Are there any successful cases where they have kept Westboro specifically out of towns for just the case against their protest? Or have they all been roundabout ways?



I just hope this doesn't come back to bite anyone in the ass later when there are better things to speak out about.

I have not even seen Westboro down here. I have seen a couple of congregations in the D/FW area try to mount a demonstration, but were restricted to holding signs and had to do it on private property, Could no obstruct public access i.e. sidewalks, streets, and could not stand on the sidewalks or streets when holding a sign. Further, some have been cited and ordered to dispurse for 'breach of the peace' when shouting their rhetoric.

So, If you want to pull what Westboro has done, at least in my neck of the woods and with the current mood of law enforcement and local government, you will have to content yourself with getting permission from private property owners to stand on their grounds, you have to hold your signs, signs will have to be a particular size, if you wish to march, walk, or 'tour' an area, the proper permit will have to be obtained AND most importantly, you will not be allowed to shout profanity or other inflammatory remarks that are uttered in order to create a breach of the peace.

Originally Posted by Blakeman

This is how you react, support the Patriot Guard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZbix25Oy0

That right there is awesome. I am not a big fan of loud bikes, but that is one time I don't mind hearing them get loud. That last shot seeing them in numbers like that is just amazing. I applaud them for what they do for these families.