The Supreme Court made the right decision in Snyder v. Phelps.

[TheWraith]

As much as we may be disgusted by the Westboro Baptist Church, the Supreme Court made the right decision upholding the fact that they have the right to protest within the law.

I do not have the right to keep the public square free of things which offend my sensibilities. Period. That fact is what allows society to keep running, because almost everything will offend someone. The same guarantee of unrestricted public demonstration that allows people like Phelps and company to operate is also what protects anti-war protests. Once you define out the idea that certain aspects of free speech aren't really free because they're offensive to too many people, then it becomes only a question of where the majority opinion lies at any given time.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. I would like to see a town pass a law requiring funeral protests to occur in free speech zones...

at a distance of 5 miles from the site of the funeral.

My reason, is so Phelps will take free speech zones to the SCOTUS and get them proved unconstitutional.

Free speech inside a fence is not free speech.

[struggle4progress]

13. WBC was kept 1000 feet from the funeral and IIRC on a different side of the church

from the entrance used by the mourners

I don't think it is unreasonable to keep demonstrations at some distance from the bereaved: in cases like this, it probably prevents brawls

The ruling didn't give WBC a free hand to say whatever whenever wherever: it simply threw out the judgment for Snyder. Snyder's suit IIRC was motivated by his distress and anger that the WBC was exploiting his personal tragedy to publicize themselves, brought to a head by something he found posted on the WBC website. His distress and anger are understandable; perhaps the rest of us should simply avoid giving the tiny WBC publicity

[Ozymanithrax]

15. I was referring back to the "Free Speech Zones" used under Bush...

where protesters could only protest in free speech zones where they could never be seen.

Actually, I think the ruling is good and Phelps and his Church are obscene bits of filth that use human tragedy to broadcast their vicious message.

[struggle4progress]

16. A WBC-type situation wouldn't be my choice for a test of Bush-style "free speech zones"

Everybody's going to think there's a legitimate public policy interest in keeping attention-seeking taunters at distance from mourners

Anyway, the Bush-style far-distant "free speech zones" would be better challenged by civil disobedience with appeal to public opinion, than by simply hoping for a win in court

[varkam]

2. An old saw comes to mind...

The First Amendment doesn't protect the speech you agree with, it protects the speech you don't.

[alsame]

5. I completely agree. My hope is that the Westboro group continue to

meet with the "walls of love" and "Angels" that have been forming to protect the families from their vile presence, as was done at the funerals of Elizabeth Edwards and Christina Green.

Make them irrelevant, stop giving them press coverage.

As much as Phelps and his gang turn my stomach, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of SCOTUS determmining what is or isn't appropriate speech.

[MonkeyMama]

12. +1 n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I agree.

It's a slippery slope from protesting a funeral to protesting a political act.

[Democrats_win]

4. Let them yell FIRE in a theater then! There are, respectfully, restrictions.

I would agree that there could be a very slippery slope on free speech here. We, the people are 98% of America while the rest is corporations. So it isn't good strategy for us to want many restrictions on free speech in our war on fascist corporations and their allies, false religion.

Just think, the Republicans want a constitutional amendment to keep people from burning the flag. Yet no one is trying to get a constitutional amendment to keep people from protesting at funerals. It should be a right that people die in peace. Let's have this one restriction. If they want to protect the flag that flew over the nation that gave us the Vietnam war and bush's torture regimes, surely we can protect people from animals like Fred Phelps.

[TheWraith]

14. But who defines that, exactly?

We can say that well, there's ONE exception, for funerals. What's the NEXT exception? Because there will always be someone who wants to push it a little farther, and often for completely good-sounding reasons. How about keeping protesters away from abortion clinics where they would be harassing and verbally abusing pregnant women? Sounds plenty reasonable. And then comes the next exception.

Yes, there are restrictions. And WBC didn't violate any of those. They're obnoxious, loud, aggressive, and some of the most vile specimens that our species has to offer, but they didn't commit libel, slander, threaten anyone, or endanger the public. If they do those things, then they can be popped regardless. But trying to shut them down because what they have to say is offensive is in itself dangerous, and it creates a new right which doesn't really exist, but which many people believe they're entitled to anyway: the right to not have anyone else do things you don't like.

[FSogol]

6. K & R. Entirely correct. Keep speech free. n/t

[leftstreet]

8. This case wasn't about the government regulating speech

It was a tort case between private parties and whether or not those parties could sue one another for damages.

Where tort is recognized it's almost impossible to prove damages rise to the standards required, so this case really seems creepy.

[HughBeaumont]

7. Does that mean someone can go in front of their "church" . . .

. . . start yelling verses from The Satanic Bible and The Necronomicon through a bullhorn while brandishing signs that say "GOD HATES OLD SHIT BIGOTS WHO BEAT THEIR KIDS WITH AXE HANDLES"? I wonder if I can I do that without getting shot by the Phelps Klux Klan or arrested by the police? After all, it IS "freedom of speech".

[leftstreet]

10. Actually, the case increased your chances of getting shot

By removing the ability of citizens to seek damages through legal means, some will 'take things into their own hands.'

:scared:

[HughBeaumont]

11. Amazing. So what's good for the goose apparently ISN'T good for the gander.

America rocks.

[spanone]

9. what else could they do? you have to uphold the first amendment

[Kurovski]

17. Free speech? That's not what it was about. Fuck Fred Phelps, and to hell with this O-post.

No one is standing around tonight handing out Righteous Liberal-Speak awards. Please knock it off. There are enough threads with people crawling all over themselves to prove how magnanimous they are. Even "centrist" folks are enjoying the shit out of it. The ruling was not about free speech. Please stop

UNRECOMMENDED

If anyone liberal thinks that this court will rule in favor of your free speech everytime, you need only look to the Bush V. Gore issue to see that they will do as they wish. They want to reduce your ability to sue as a protection, we will see many cases in the future between corporate damage and Citizen's rights, I predict.

Dirty word warning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x545469#551428


And this: from Nate Phelps:

As I'm reading the opinion I keep thinking that something is missing. The Court has, in my opinion, made the same error as the Appellate Court before them. No serious consideration is given to the right of a person to bury a loved one in peace. Then I get to Justice Alito's diseenting opinion and there it is.

Justice Roberts makes much of the duty of the Court to consider "the whole record" in determining the nature of the speech and whether it concerns public matters. Buried in the body of his dissenting opinion Justice Alito sheds light on a critical aspect of the Court's thinking.

A part of my family's protest surrounding the death of Matthew Snyder was the online post they made a few days after picketing his funeral. The title of the post was "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. The Visit of Westboro Baptist Church to Help the Inhabitants of Maryland Connect the Dots!" In that nifty little outburst of inscribed drivel the language clearly abandoned "public issues", turning brutishly private and personal in nature:

"God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver!...you raised him for the devil. Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew...to divorce, and to commit adultery...They also...taught Matthew to be an idolater."

How could the Court possibly rule that this language concerned a public issue? Well, as Justice Alito explains, they didn't bother. Footnote #15 explains:

The Court refuses to consider the epic because it was not discussed in Snyder's petition for certiorari.


http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/

[Bake]

18. The Court got it right. Now it's time for some private parties to get it right.

After all, there ARE consequences to WBC's bullshit. Somebody just might bust a cap ...

And if they do, I won't shed a tear. Let them meet their Maker. I think they'll be in for a big surprise.

Bake

[Kurovski]

19. Their was a group who surounded them and chanted "go home: so loudly that they did just that.

It's Fred Phelps who is the monster, and the shrivled wanker stays home.

There are many children (who don't even know why they are there) who are brought to the protests. That would be horrible, Bake.

[TheWraith]

20. While I wouldn't advocate shooting the WBC, I should note that provocation IS a defense to assault.

It is under some circumstances, if not acceptable, then at least defensible to react violently to obnoxious or insulting speech. The most publicly famous case involves Buzz Aldrin, and a man named Bart Sibrel. Sibrel is one of the tin-foil-hatters who thinks we didn't land on the moon, and was accosting Aldrin in public and accusing him of lying, questioning his religious faith for "bearing false witness," and a variety of other insults.

Aldrin, despite being a fairly old man, responded by punching Sibrel in the face.

When Sibrel brought charges, the judge determined that yes, Sibrel had in fact brought it on himself, and let Aldrin go. So the WBC should be a little more careful, because I doubt that a court is going to look any more fondly on them protesting soldiers' funerals than that one did on Sibrel insulting a national hero.

[Major Hogwash]

23. It'll happen, and it will be some poor Iraq War veteran's dad that does it.

Some rightwinger that goes overboard.
There are rightwingers out here who still chew bear meat and live in cabins.
One of those guys loses a son in Iraq and the WBC shows up, look out.

You can only pour so much gas on a fire before someone gets burned!

[Bake]

30. WBC was going to "do" a vet's funeral in Mississippi while I was down there

And I'm pretty sure one of Mis'sippi's good ol' boys let them know what was liable to happen if they showed up.

Funny, they decided not to come.

And while I abhor violence, I cheered when I heard that bit of news.

Sooner or later, it's going to happen. I don't advocate it. But when it does, I won't be surprised.

Bake

[Zanzoobar]

21. But then we come to the crowded theater argument

The majority rules in this situation, as it is apparent that the offender does not understand, or is not willing to adhere to, the sensibilities of the majority.

He might feel just as put upon as the majority. Thus, civil law.

[Major Hogwash]

22. They are the most despised family in the country, if you don't count the Bushes.

Or the Cheneys.

[Tsiyu]

24. Good cuz I am considering a protest in front of the Supreme Court

while they're in session. i'm going to carry signs that say

"The FSM HATES SCALIA!!!!"

"CLARENCE THOMAS is a PERVERT and he's going to HELL!"

"JOHN ROBERTS IS THE DEVIL INCARNATE!!!!!!"


I hope they don't mind.

[Zanzoobar]

25. I hope your titanium skull plate is union made!

And that none of those bastard union slugs eat at olive walmart breastfeeding smoking.

[Tsiyu]

29. with their circumcised sons...

who've been tatooo'ed by a guy who uses cornflakes to bread his fried chicken

[garthranzz]

26. WRONG!

As another poster pointed out - see Alito's dissent.

As another poster pointed out - it's a classic fire in the theater.

Since when is a funeral a public event? We're not talking a head-of-state.

Does anyone have the right to walk into your home and say whatever they want?

Does anyone have the right to walk into your place of worship and say whatever they want?

That a funeral takes place outdoors does not make it public.

Are there rules restricting paparazzi?

Etc.

The ruling is vile. Plessy v. Ferguson. Bush v. Gore.

8-1? what the...?

[TheWraith]

27. Please try to base your objections on real-world facts.

As another poster pointed out - it's a classic fire in the theater.

No, in fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with such an example. The example of shouting "fire" in a theater is that it endangers people. There's no direct, provable causal link between what the WBC does and people getting hurt, which is the standard required for criminalization of speech.

Since when is a funeral a public event? We're not talking a head-of-state.

It's not. And there's no requirement that it be a public event, nor is there any legal grounds for objecting to people protesting something that's not a public event. Whether it's a public event is completely irrelevant.

Does anyone have the right to walk into your home and say whatever they want?

Does anyone have the right to walk into your place of worship and say whatever they want?

The protesters are not in someone's home, nor a church, nor anywhere else. They're on public streets, conforming to the laws for public protests, such as a 1000 foot distance requirement.

[NuclearDem]

28. "As another poster pointed out - it's a classic fire in the theater."

No. No it's not. Not even in the slightest.

This is like holding up a sign completely out of sight of the theater that says people who eat popcorn are fat gluttons.

"That a funeral takes place outdoors does not make it public."

No, but because WBC is protesting American tolerance of homosexuality it becomes a public issue. This and the Hustler ruling both say that speech regarding an issue of national import is protected, no matter how disgustingly, shockingly, or inappropriately it's said. Nobody walked into the funeral and starting shouted obscenities; they contacted the police department ahead of time, got the permit, and stayed within the law when they held their protest.