Supreme Court rules for anti-gay church over military funeral protests

[madinmaryland]

Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"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," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

At issue was a delicate test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

:wtf:

[MineralMan]

1. A very tough decision.

The First Amendment is one that requires the courts to rule, sometimes, in favor of ugly speech, as well as popular speech. It's very dangerous to limit some speech, since that opens the door to limits on any kind of speech. As much as I detest Phelps and his incestuous band, it becomes a serious issue if you ban their speech.

In most places where they show up, others show up to block their ability to disrupt funerals and other things. It's been quite effective in most cases. Phelps should be shunned, ridiculed, and countered wherever he goes, but we either have freedom of speech or we do not. It is that simple and that serious. Any restrictions on free expression must be looked at with a very discriminating eye. We do not want to go down the road of prohibiting expression we don't like, or we may find ourselves among those whose freedom of speech is prohibited.

[madinmaryland]

8. Yes it is...

When does free speech become equated with hate mongering, harassment, and intimidation. And, are hate mongering, harassment and intimidation examples of free speech?

It really is a fine line that has to be drawn. And once you start, it becomes a slippery slope. The question then is how can the government limit their access, just as the Repukes were legally able to do during the Bush administration at any of *'s appearances. Could they not be given a spot to protest which would essentially be out the view of the funeral goers? Would that be unconstitutional?

[MineralMan]

9. Actually, they're often relegated to a location that is away

from the view of mourners and others. This is easier on private property, of course, but even in public places, they've been shuffled off to set locations by local authorities. In other situations, local people come and block them from view. Phelps is no longer getting free access to any place he wants.

[Drale]

2. Now that the justice system has failed them

Some of the families for these fallen soldiers might feel that have to take drastic measures

[SDuderstadt]

4. Such as? n/t

[still_one]

3. Funny when protesters were outside the republican convention they arrested them without hesitation

or decided to move them to "free speech" areas

sounds to me like we have two sets of laws depending who you are.

Are these funerals public events?

[Kurovski]

5. Okey-dokey then.

[MNBrewer]

6. As detestable as WBC is,

I think they should be made even MORE visible. They repulse people, and the more people they repulse, the more people will turn away from their message of hate.

Fred Phelps/WBC have been terrific "friends" in the progress we're making on GLBT equality.

[pintobean]

7. "Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented" n/t