48 states: Funeral protests shouldn't be protected

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in support of a father who sued anti-gay protesters over their demonstration at the 2006 funeral of his son, a Marine killed in Iraq.

Only Virginia and Maine declined to sign the brief by the Kansas attorney general.

Albert Snyder sued over protests by the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church at his son's funeral in Maryland. The church pickets funerals because they believe war deaths are punishment for U.S. tolerance of homosexuality.

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment.

In the brief filed Tuesday, the states argued they have a compelling interest in protecting the sanctity of funerals.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests_1

[derby378]

1. That's a tough one...

Basically, the impression is being made that legislation is being crafted strictly because of the actions of one aberrant group. This sort of attention makes Fred Phelps swell up with pride. He'd consider successful passage of the law a supreme compliment.

[OutNow]

4. Not too tough at all

We have the 1rst Amendment. It was written to protect all sorts of unpopular speech. The speech you find objectionable and the speech the right finds objectionable. I damn guarantee you that a decision against the funeral protesters will come right back and bite us in the ass when we want to express views a future right wing administration doesn't want to hear.


Why yes, I have been a member of the ACLU for 36 years.

[derby378]

5. Yep, my point exactly

:hi:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

8. What they're arguing is not entirely the right to free speech

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it's important to point out that the argument here is the sanctity of a funeral vs. the right to free speech. It's not the speech insomuch as their choice of venue. Or at least that's the angle which is being pursued. Which will of course could created a precedence to limit free speech in other venues depending on this ruling.

[Critters2]

30. The Constitution doesn't recognize the "sanctity" of any venue. nt

[msanthrope]

32. It does recognize time and place restrictions.....

It would be nice if SCOTUS could include medical facilities and hospices, too...

[No Elephants]

35. "No speech zones" are Constitutionally, okay, though.

You don't have to allow speech everywhere. Once you allow it, though, you cannot be selective, based on content.

[marshall]

31. The father didn't even know the protest was going on until after the funeral

He became aware of it through media reporting.

In other words, the sanctity of the funeral was protected, as were the free speech rights of the kooks. Existing laws require these protestors to maintain a certain distance from the funeral.

[No Elephants]

37. I don't know if that is true of laws in all 50 states. If so, are those laws Constitutional?

[marshall]

38. I think it is a state by state law

It's the same basic interpretation of the law that keeps abortion protestors a certain distance from clinics.

The father had an uphill battle in proving damages to begin with. The protest in now way impacted the funeral. I'm not sure what basis he would have to say he was damaged in any real or verifiable sense. They were just standing in some distant spot holding their hateful signs and nobody would have even known what they were doing if some media outlet hadn't taped it.

The Phelps traveling hell-carnival is as much a creation of the media as it is of the Phelps family's.

[Scuba]

14. +1

[Moonwalk]

16. Yes and No. Free Speech isn't...

Protected everywhere. Go into a mall owned by some corporation and start preaching and they can toss you out. Legally. Meanwhile, an outdoor mall owned by the city has to let you preach. Likewise, a homeowner can toss you out of their home if you say something they don't like, but they can't toss you out of a public park for saying things people don't like.

So the question becomes are graveyards protected areas of free speech? If they're owned by city or state, probably. But not if they're privately owned. It does get sticky for government/city owned burial areas for soldiers.

But how much would it bite us in the ass if we weren't allowed to protest at the funerals of individuals who didn't want us there, who just wanted to bury their dead? How effective is it for anyone (meaning it gains your cause sympathy and followers) if you protest at such places, interrupting the grief of the family?

[awoke_in_2003]

22. Phelps and his merry band of

fuckheads make sure to stay on public property- they don't enter the graveyard, they protest outside (I hope, one day, a lightning bolt gets lucky :evilgrin: )

[No Elephants]

36. Please see Reply #35. (I love the ACLU, too.)

[cbdo2007]

2. I don't know how it is legal to begin with....

free speech smee smeech...they are causing a public disturbance and attempting to incite violence and panic. Hell, maybe they could even charge them with slander since none of what they say can be proven but is meant to cause harm to someone's name.

[OutNow]

6. Causing a public disturbance - ha ha ha

That's what the cops in Philly used to say at antiwar demos in the 1970s right before they charged with their nightsticks swinging.

Our defense, when we sued the city, was the 1rst Amendment protects our speech. Guess what? We won the lawsuit and a federal judge issued an injunction against future cop attacks.

How soon we forget.


Why yes, I have been a member of the ACLU for 36 years.

[Tesha]

3. Forty-eight states are idiots.

The moment you start deciding which speech is protectable and which
isn't, free speech is over.

Tesha

[Chulanowa]

9. Then there has never been free speech

Seriously, ever heard of libel, slander, sedition, incitement, fraud, intellectual theft? These are forms of speech that have been deemed to not be protected under the first amendment. By your argument, then, there has never been such a thing as free speech.

[Tesha]

17. You know, I considered adding "political" to "free speech", but I figured that most DUers could...

...figure that out.

Obviously, I was wrong.

Tesha

[xynthee]

25. Thank you! n/t

[lefty2000]

7. Picket the church

Fight fire with fire and speech with speech.

[HockeyMom]

10. If you aren't invited by the family

the family should have the right to KICK YOU OUT.

[Frances]

11. Aren't abortion protestors required to stand back so many feet or

something?

[Tesha]

19. And it is precisely because of the existence of those laws that you were unable...

...to get anywhere near "President" Bush to protest him.

You could, instead, stand in a "Free Speech Zone" half a mile away,
well out of sight and out of mind.

Tesha

[katandmoon]

24. Bullcrap. It wasn't because of those laws.

[Occulus]

26. Completely untrue. n/t

[Fastcars]

12. I Don't Think You Have A Right...

To disrupt someone's private event with your speech meant only to cause them mental anguish. And that is the only goal of Phelp's and his "flock", hoping that someone will give them an excuse to sue for damages.

If this is found to be protected, then someone needs to form a group identifying members of WBC so we can begin to picket the member's funerals, weddings, birthday parties, etc. Maybe a "God hates your parents" protest at a kindergarten graduation. Maybe it is time for a little eye-for-an-eye response to the Phelps clan.

[bluestateguy]

13. Constitutional government will survive telling the Westboro thugs to take a hike

And BTW the "slippery slope" notion is a poor and hackneyed technique of argument.

[Scuba]

15. Are you kidding??? ....

...our Constitution is under fire every moment of every day. From Bush wiretapping citizens without a warrant to Rand Paul wanting to change the 14th Ammendment and more.

No way do I want to limit free speech, even for these despicable scumbags. Keep them 200 feet back, just like abortion protesters.

[burnsei sensei]

20. The top-down assaults

on the Constitution worry me much more at this point than the bottom-up ones.

[No Elephants]

34. Then someone better tell the SCOTUS to stop using "slippery slope."

[burnsei sensei]

18. Westboro's protests at funerals

are constitutionally protected free speech.
But they are also disorderly conduct, conduct designed to humiliate the families of the dead and the dead themselves.
Serial killers often engage in such behavior, humiliating their victims, the victim's family, and the community, and we do not call it free speech.
There is something about these particular demonstrations-- the attitude of attack, the intention to do harm to those already hurt, that makes them different from most protected 1st Amendment speech.
Still, if it turns out that they are protected and go on and on, I wouldn't complain either.
If anything, the bitterness against this group could arise to be such that they'll end up as beseiged as the members of MOVE.

[awoke_in_2003]

21. "Only Virginia and Maine declined to sign"

I believe the greatest Virginian in history (Jefferson) would be proud his state declined to sign. Phelps is a repugnant shit head, no doubt, but there is a group who does a good job own drowning this douchebag out (HD V-twins make some noise)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Funeral protests should be protected.

Particularly the ones celebrating Phelps' emminent death.

[xynthee]

27. Funerals should be sacrosanct.

I wouldn't feel right about showing up and protesting at Dick Cheney / George W. Bush / George H.W. Bush / Condi Rice / Donald Rumsfeld / John Ashcroft's funerals. NO ONE (even these "people"'s despicable offspring / loved ones) should be subjected to the type of hate that some soldiers' families have to endure.

Just how slippery is this slope, though? Is there any way to prevent people from disrupting people's funerals while protecting people's first amendment rights?

[OutNow]

28. Sacrosanct - Not A Good Criteria

What could be more sacrosanct than a new president taking the oath of office in Washington D.C.? More sacrosanct than a funeral or not? How about the offloading of the coffins or dead soldiers at the base in Delaware? The Bush administration tried to limit speech at his (illegal) inauguration and at Dover AFB because they were somehow special events. We challenged this in court as a violation of our 1rst Amendment rights.

More importantly, who gets to decide if a particular event is "sacrosanct" or even the definition of "sacrosanct"?

That's why it's a good idea to not allow the government to define these sorts of things. That's why the 1rst Amendment is so important.

[Omaha Steve]

29. K&R!

[mbperrin]

33. The fact that Phelps is alive is absolute rockbottom proof that there

is no gawd. Or if there is, he's senile, insane, or just plain mean.

I'm hoping Phelps absolutely gets everything he's got coming.

And soon.