Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Anti-Gay Protesters at Military Funeral

[Versus]

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that vitriolic anti-gay protests at military funerals are a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Writing for the majority in an 8-1 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that the Westboro Baptist Church, led by its founder, Fred Phelps, could not be held liable for money damages sought by the family of a slain Marine, Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, whose funeral was picketed by church members in 2006. Only Justice Samuel Alito, who had forcefully objected to the protests during oral argument in the case in October, dissented from the opinion.

The court declared that the protesters' controversial signs -- on placards that read "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "America is Doomed," "Thank God for IEDs" and "God Hates Fags," among others -- constituted lawful and peaceful commentary on political issues under First Amendment legal precedent.

Roberts wrote: "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

The court ruled that the protesters stayed away from the memorial service, obeyed the constraints imposed upon them by local officials, and were barely seen by mourners as they drove to the service.

"Given that Westboro's speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern," Roberts wrote, "that speech is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment" and "cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt."

The court thus affirmed a lower federal appeals court ruling that had tossed out the Snyders' lawsuit on similar grounds. Earlier, a federal trial judge had ruled in favor of the Snyder family, and against the Westboro Baptist Church.

In a strong dissent, Alito said that the court's decision allowed the Westboro church to "brutalize" the family at its most vulnerable moment. He wrote: "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case. . . In this case, respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder, and this attack, which was almost certain to inflict injury, was central to respondents' well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention."

The Phelps' family, which essentially constitutes the Westboro Baptist Church, immediately praised the ruling. Margie Phelps, who acted as attorney for her family, told the Associated Press: "The only surprise is that Justice Alito did not feel compelled to follow his oath. We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the
First Amendment."

In an interview with CBS Radio News after the decision was announced, Phelps said she would tell the Snyder family: "This was a fool's errand. It was un-American as anything you could have done. That boy is still dead. . . Now get down on your knees, mourn for your sins, repent and obey."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03...rotests-at-fu/

[Despanan]

I grudgingly agree. It's more important to protect freedom of speech than silence these assholes.

I probably wouldn't be too buthurt if the whole family met with an unfortunate accident which removed their particular strain of crazy from the gene pool however.

[Versus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Church

[Versus]

They can say whatever they want. The issue is doing it when and where they are, regardless of who it causes pain to. It's not a violation of their freedom, it's a protection of people who should be allowed to grieve in peace without harassment.

It's also fucking wrong, but I guess that doesn't count for anything in court.

[Ned]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I grudgingly agree. It's more important to protect freedom of speech than silence these assholes.

I probably wouldn't be too buthurt if the whole family met with an unfortunate accident which removed their particular strain of crazy from the gene pool however.

I love how the political left attempts to sympathize with the grievers and in the same breath endorses GENOCIDE for those who wish to uphold the constitution.

Do you even know why the constitution was created in the first place? Oh wait, I forgot, your a communist. Never mind, loser.

[Ned]

Originally Posted by Versus

They can say whatever they want. The issue is doing it when and where they are, regardless of who it causes pain to. It's not a violation of their freedom, it's a protection of people who should be allowed to grieve in peace without harassment.

It's also fucking wrong, but I guess that doesn't count for anything in court.

It's also wrong to wish genocide against a people like your buddy despan has endorsed. I think he is the real crazy idiot.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Ned

I love how the political left attempts to sympathize with the grievers and in the same breath endorses GENOCIDE for those who wish to uphold the constitution.

Do you even know why the constitution was created in the first place? Oh wait, I forgot, your a communist. Never mind, loser.

Get the fuck out of this thread.

[Ned]

Originally Posted by Versus

Get the fuck out of this thread.

make me. LOL>

[Ned]

seriously, WTF are you gonna do about it? I have already mentioned that captain conformo cannot ban me from this board. Notice how I do not have to revert to profanities to cause you "emotional distress". Keep trying, sister...

[Ned]

All I have to do is register under a different name + IP.

You really don't know how the internet works do you? It's kind of like the constitution. IT'S IN YOUR FACE! AND WILL NEVER GO AWAY

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Versus

They can say whatever they want. The issue is doing it when and where they are, regardless of who it causes pain to. It's not a violation of their freedom, it's a protection of people who should be allowed to grieve in peace without harassment.

It's also fucking wrong, but I guess that doesn't count for anything in court.

While I agree with you, there's a distinct problem with using the law to enforce this: the law is a blunt instrument - It's going to apply regardless of context. If you legally ban them from expressing their opinions on public property in this context, you open the door for silencing folks in other contexts.

For instance, the Church of Scientology could probably use an anti-Westboro ruling as precedent to legally gag anti-Scientology protests and the like.

[Versus]

This is really frustrating. Right now I could easily be swept up into a violent mob.

I'll get back to you when I calm down, man.

[Saya]

I take solace in knowing that Fred Phelps is going to die, probably sometime soon. I'd like to see what happens at his funeral.

Thing about them is that they're a very very small group, but they got so many lawyers in that family they know exactly what to do to keep it legal, and won't hesitate to sue if someone gives them shit.

ETA: Would a "Ding Dong Fred Phelps Is Dead Dance Party" make you feel better when the time comes?

[Despanan]

Here's an interesting hypothetical Kontan and I turned over in our minds after a few glasses of bourbon:

Say tommorrow, we wake up to find the entire Phelps family brutally murdered, save for the young children. The perpetrator has allready turned himself in. In his only interview the murderer says:

"I did it, and I'm not sorry. I did it for their children. They have a right to say whatever they want as adults, but they don't have a right to warp their children's minds as they have been doing, and perpetuate their sick, insane worldview."

How would you respond?

[Saya]

Murder is murder. I wouldn't feel right about George Bush being brutally murdered, and he's responsible for the death of thousands, the misery of millions. They only have direct influence over 71 people.

If there ever was legal action taken against them, for hate speech or child abuse, I'd be all for it.

[Murder.Of.Crows]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Here's an interesting hypothetical Kontan and I turned over in our minds after a few glasses of bourbon:

Say tommorrow, we wake up to find the entire Phelps family brutally murdered, save for the young children. The perpetrator has allready turned himself in. In his only interview the murderer says:

"I did it, and I'm not sorry. I did it for their children. They have a right to say whatever they want as adults, but they don't have a right to warp their children's minds as they have been doing, and perpetuate their sick, insane worldview."

How would you respond?

Defense of a third party, completely fine. lol

[Expecto Sherlock]

"Free speech isn't a good reason to be stupid. It means you can be if you want."

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Here's an interesting hypothetical Kontan and I turned over in our minds after a few glasses of bourbon:

Say tommorrow, we wake up to find the entire Phelps family brutally murdered, save for the young children. The perpetrator has allready turned himself in. In his only interview the murderer says:

"I did it, and I'm not sorry. I did it for their children. They have a right to say whatever they want as adults, but they don't have a right to warp their children's minds as they have been doing, and perpetuate their sick, insane worldview."

How would you respond?

Murder is murder and whether we feel they did a service for society or not they still broke the law.

What the courts fail to acknowledge in this incident is the ease with which the actions of Westboro church can damage a person spiritually and emotionally, and the pre-meditation of an act that was directed at a specific group of people for cultural and belief reasons. While they are well within rights to advocate their opinion (as they should be), regardless of it being a public venue this was a deliberate act of harassment meant to elicit pain from the family or worse, conversion to idiocy.


When Phelps dies I'm going to... I don't know... probably nothing, I don't want to lessen myself as a human being by emulating his actions.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Ned

All I have to do is register under a different name + IP.

You really don't know how the internet works do you? It's kind of like the constitution. IT'S IN YOUR FACE! AND WILL NEVER GO AWAY

Hmm a new strain, interesting. I will be observing and dissecting your personality, please continue about your business on these forums as you normally would, I haven't had a new subject of study in years. Also I see you haven't posted an introduction in the intro section of the forum, please do immediately.

[Versus]

I wouldn't have a problem brutally kicking their shit in... but I think that stems from a frustration of not being able to stop them legally in good conscience. Desp is right, and it pisses me off that they should be allowed to carry on. I was following a dangerous line of thinking that it was possible to abuse freedom before I checked myself.

[MissCheyenne]

Freedom of speech/expression is as dangerous as it is necessary. It was all over the English newspapers a week or so ago about a group of Muslim extremists burning poppies and being given £50 fines for it (for those who may not know, the poppy is used as the symbol for Remembrance Day, to honour the memory of those who died serving in wars, in particular, the two world wars.) Of course, they have the RIGHT to express themselves, as everyone does, including the the 'church' in question in this thread but it doesn't make it morally right. It disgusts me that anyone would abuse the freedom they have in order to cause pain and disruption to another person.

[CptSternn]

I thought the Celtics got better coverage than the Muslims in regards to the poppy protests that took place.



Hail, hail!