DescentBB

Supreme Court rules First Amendment protects church's right to picket funerals

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02548.html

article wrote:The court's most liberal and most conservative justices joined in a decision likely to define the term. It writes a new chapter in the court's findings that freedom of speech is so central to the nation that it protects cruel and unpopular protests - even, in this case, at the moment of a family's most profound grief.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that Westboro Baptist Church's picketing at fallen soldiers' funerals "is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible." But he said the reaction may not be "punishing the speaker."

I have mixed feelings about this decision. On the one hand, I think that it is great that the highest court in the land chose to uphold the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly. On the other hand I feel this will only encourage and enable to Westboro Baptist Church to continue making money from lawsuits against people who have problems with their methods (which, as I understand it, constitutes a great number of people.)

Westboro's main motivation, aside from putting itself in the news, is money and money alone. They're a bunch of lowlifes that have found a neat scam to run and make money off of.

ThunderBunny wrote:Westboro's main motivation, aside from putting itself in the news, is money and money alone. They're a bunch of lowlifes that have found a neat scam to run and make money off of.

This is exactly why I think the Supreme Court shouldn't have heard the case. It's just encouraging them.

Agent Smith goes to Washington?
Dies in the electric chair? DC voltage

CON edison haha

rawr

Certainly not what Jesus would do.

snoopy wrote:Certainly not what Jesus would do.

Agreed!!!! My God doesn't hate

But I take some solice in the fact. that when they stand before God on Judgement day. they will be judged by the same standards that they have judged others.

So it is ok to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

Spidey wrote:So it is ok to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

no its not.

and not what westboro is doing. it is not OK to instill panic in people OR to incite a riot. the SCOTUS decision was the right one. and I'm sure all the current union protestors will agree. because if the Scotus had ruled against westboro then everyone of the union members and the unions themselves would be liable for legal action.

Because of this decision, the funeral family now has to pay westborrughs legal fees. Would you care to guess who offered to pay the family's bill out of his own pocket? Michael Moore? Nancy Pelosi? John Kerry? Nope. Bill O'Rielly has offered. Don't look for any of the bleed heart liberal types to use their personnal money, especially if they can find a way to use yours.

While the SCOTUS decision may be distasteful it is still correct. I'm waiting now for protesters with signs saying Westbourough members are fags and God really hates them. Be interesting when one of their own dies and has a funeral with all the "Well Wishers" standing around with derogatory signs in hand. Think they will start to understand?

woodchip wrote:I'm waiting now for protesters with signs saying Westbourough members are fags and God really hates them.

Nah, that just fuels their fire.

There are some who go out with "God loves you" signs, but honestly the best method I've seen of counter-demonstration are the nonsensical (e.g. "God Hates Signs (that movie sucked)", "The Cake Is A Lie!", "Stop Sparkly Vampires NOW!"). It takes the hate and just makes it laughable.

they may have a right to free speech, but it doesn't give them the right to abuse it.

much like yelling fire in a theatre is an abuse of said right.


what these people don't get is that with the rights come responsibilities. and one of those responsibilities is to use it with a modicum of restraint.

The Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, is not and has never been about religion, morality, or anything of the sort. It's about money. Fred Phelps is a very skilled and highly successful lawyer. During the Civil Rights movement he defended African-American interests because it was good money. This is the same thing. It's good money to bait people into attacking you with outlandish rhetoric, and then filing a suit or countersuit. This is how they make money.

Some of the Phelps family, particularly the younger ones, might actually believe this nonsense they spew, but I highly doubt Fred does.

It's always weird when people bring up these phrases that they say they like or don't like when I haven't even heard of it.... I think it's just an Internet thing; I have no idea what people are talking about.

.

+1

I think a few episodes of jury nullification in the trial of people who beat the crap out of them might deter them from being such completely selfish asshats....
I volunteer for the jury duty or the delivery of alleged ass whoopins'

I know, violence isn't a proper solution....well....yes, actually, sometimes it is. When diplomacy fails opposing sides go to war.

God hates hate?

I understand the nobility of the "at all costs" defence of the first ammendment. But sometime we are just too anal about it.

A friend of mine recently asked why we don't apply "common sense" to free speech, and instead let the crazies run rampant.

I answered, we're all crazies to somebody. Some people think I'm crazy because of my religious beliefs. Others think he's crazy because of his. My grandma's "common sense" restrictions of speech would be very different from mine. The only way to truly protect our rights to share our beliefs is to protect everyone's rights to share their beliefs, even if it's extremely offensive or in poor taste.

Its against the law for me to punch you, but it is ok for me to protest your sons funeral because God hates fags.

Which hurts more? Which causes more damage?

Telling them that they cant say God hates fags would be limiting their free speech.Telling them that they cant picket a greiving families funeral is common sense.

They should find the contester's family's funerals and picket that they would still be alive if Westboro hadn't picketted the other funerals.

BTW if it was my family's funeral being protested I would end up doing around 18 months (7 with good behavior) by the time it was done.

SilverFJ wrote:BTW if it was my family's funeral being protested I would end up doing around 18 months (7 with good behavior) by the time it was done.

It's good that you've resolved to do this beforehand.

Gooberman wrote:Its against the law for me to punch you, but it is ok for me to protest your sons funeral because God hates fags.

Which hurts more? Which causes more damage?

It's also OK for either of us to tell someone from a different religion that their beliefs (and possibly their parents' beliefs) are wrong. How much potential is there for hurt and damage there? How much potential is there to hurt someone by telling them that their wife is having an affair, or that their child has a fatal illness? Do you suppose it might hurt the WBC members when they hear us call them d-bags and cultists?

The point of freedom of speech is to allow people to express opinions and ideas that might hurt, distress, or annoy others. Sometimes far more than the hurt of a punch in the face...

The point of freedom of speech is to allow people to express opinions and ideas that might hurt, distress, or annoy others. Sometimes far more than the hurt of a punch in the face...

I agree, but how does being at the funeral, rather then say the capital, further their message that "God Hates Fags?" Other then, the additional attention they get by causing such emotional shock to others that they would be so cruel. And thats where I think it leaves the realm of "free speech".

This is sort of like the definition of porn....you know it when you see it. Few will actually honestly deny it. But it can be quite difficult to accurately define it.

Speech is limited based on location all the time. I cannot walk onto the senate floor and start preaching about my political beliefs. Is that limiting my freedom of speech? No.

I believe they were allowed within 1000 ft and were still within line of site of the grieving family.

Thats ridiculous.

Legislation is made for those who rule, not for those who don't. That's why it's illegal for you to punch someone in the face but legal for the people to be emotionally disturbed.

"God hates justifying legislation"

.

However, if the founding fathers could see how far beyond that original intent the politicians and lawyers have pushed it, especially the hate groups trying their best to dishonor the burial of American soldiers who fought for that original intent, they would've certainly made exceptions.

Bee, what makes you think people are any different now than they were then? Because we ride in cars and watch TV? The founding fathers made safeguards taking human nature into account, which does not change. I stand by the courts decision as having more vision and not taking a short-sighted view. Yet, picket my sons funeral like that, which is hateful and tasteless, and I personally would go on a non physical violence rampage on that church, doing everything to destroy it from without and within.

Bet51987 wrote:However, if the founding fathers could see how far beyond that original intent the politicians and lawyers have pushed it, especially the hate groups trying their best to dishonor the burial of American soldiers who fought for that original intent, they would've certainly made exceptions.

I think they thought about stuff exactly like this. Exceptions beget exceptions. I put it this way to someone today: Some day it will be your turn to have something to say that others construe as offensive. I think the primary person that the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the law was the person that angered them in the crass way that they expressed themselves. I particularly feel that I'll have my turn, because I believe that the truth of the Bible is offensive to the non-believer, and I see people for whom the mere mention of the Bible is cause for anger, no matter how gently or lovingly it's brought up.

It's their right to express themselves, but it doesn't make it morally right to do.

Freedom of speech also implies the use of a proper forum and an appropriate time and place.

Why people take freedom of speech as an absolute, is a mystery to me. Remember rights have to take into account other rights. (you know, the arm swing thing)

At least one member of the court made some sense.

Spidey wrote:Remember rights have to take into account other rights.

Which?

Spidey is right, there were other legal considerations, like liability for intentional infliction of distress, freedom of peaceful assembly, 'captive audience':

Wiki on this case wrote:The questions presented are as follows:

1.Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter;
2.Whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly; and
3.Whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a "captive audience" who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

[link]

Again, I don't think ANYONE here is defending Phelps or his organization or what they do. The debate is really whether those other considerations were enough to convict Phelps' group.

Apparently, most of the justices felt that due to the distance of the protest (which seems to have been a big factor in the decision), there wasn't enough to rule against Phelps.

--------

Personally, I'm a bit surprised that the ruling wasn't closer. I understand there are precedents against liability for intentionally-distressing speech injuring a public figure, but I don't understand why/how it was applied to this case.

I also find it odd that the proximity/visibility of the protest seems to have been such a big deal. If I say something that would make me legally liable for damages at 10 feet or 100 feet away, why wouldn't I be liable if I'm 1000 feet away? [E.g. If I yell "fire" into a crowded theater from outside, instead of from inside.]

That said, I do tend to agree with the statements in here about the value of free speech. It can be a difficult thing in the hands of jerks, but it's certainly better than the alternative. [Plus, people can still be held liable if there are demonstratable damages involved.]

.

Bet51987 wrote:...but the actual intent was for people to have the freedom to challenge their government without worry of repercussions. It was to protect people from government, not to protect a neighbor that placed a sign in his yard stating how much he hated the neighbor across the street because his son is gay... or protest the funeral of a dead American soldier...

Many groups and individuals claim the First Amendment was written to guarantee unpopular and even offensive speech, and that the men who wrote it were political idealists, ahead of their time. What most fail to realize is that the First Amendment was written to ensure that America’s ruling class was guaranteed the freedom to operate in the public sphere. In the eighteenth century, the idea that a private citizen would be able to afford a printing press or that a broadsheet was anything other than the tool of any given political faction was simply ludicrous.

http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/ar ... d1206/pg1/

Bet51987 wrote:Are there limits to freedom of speech, expression, and assembly?

There aren't "limits" per se (and there shouldn't be!) but there are laws which allow for prosecution when a speaker is legally liable for injury or damages.

Bet51987 wrote:If the answer is yes, then there should be no reason not to add another. No picketing within sight or earshot of a private funeral.

That's the thing, Bet. The Supreme Court majority found that the protest was not within sight or earshot. (They emphasized that the funeral attendees could only see the tops of signs, and couldn't hear the protest).

Again, I personally find that to be a strange basis for the decision. IMHO, proximity shouldn't be a strong factor when looking at the legality of something like this.

Why are we discussing the geniuses of Westboro church? Shouldn't we focus more on the leaders of the Congressional Church of Satan?

Sry Bett. Kitchen remodel has prevented me from seriously responding.

Are there limits to freedom of speech, expression, and assembly?

Yes, but the limits are imposed by your peers and what the majority of society accepts. The Government's job is to ensure that every one represented has an equal voice. It is, We The People's job to uphold standards. Sorry, if the majority of your peers in that region are willing to accept that kind of behavior, then you too must also.

The Guvamint's chob is to silence dissenters (descenters ). It is the chob of the People™ to stay in line, to be cruel to one another, then hate protesters or protest at funerals.

.

Bet51987 wrote:...there should be a "rule" that no protests, are allowed before, during
and after a funeral, which includes the funeral parlor, church, cemetery, and vehicle routes...period.

That's quite a 'rule'.

To play devil's advocate for a moment: Would you still support that rule if it was a funeral honoring a convicted serial killer, and you felt you needed to protest it?

[Note that I am not making an analogy to the WBC protests or the Snyder case. Those are morally hideous. I'm addressing Bet's suggestion, because it appears to have zero exceptions.]