SCOTUS: Westboro has right to protest at Military funerals [Archive]

Snaquebite

03-02-2011, 11:29

I'm all for free speech, but funerals are not generally considered a public event, but rather a private service. How does this not infringe on the right to privacy?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/02/westboro-funeral-pickets-protected-speech-high-court-rules/

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled Wednesday that members of the renegade Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutionally protected right to protest military funerals even though their demonstrations are widely despised and deplored

glebo

03-02-2011, 11:34

They have no scruples at all.

Just because they have the right to do it....doesn't mean it's right to do it....know what I mean???:mad:

Hopefully their day will come......to an END

Sarski

03-02-2011, 11:42

I wonder how they might feel if a group of people went and crashed the funeral of one of their loved ones.

lindy

03-02-2011, 11:44

I wonder why this is not considered disturbing the peace since it includes "hate speech" with slurs directed towards homosexuals? I guess the best way to counter this is to file a restraining order against the "Church" before the scheduled funeral of fallen service members.

tonyz

03-02-2011, 11:48

Copy of the opinion at link below.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

from the decision:

"The picketing took place within a 10-by-25 foot plot of public land adjacent to a public street, behind a temporary fence. App. to Brief for Appellants in No. 08–1026 (CA4), pp. 2282–2285 (hereinafter App.)."

"Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were. Westboro alerted local authorities to its funeral protest and fully complied with police guidance on where the picketing could be staged. The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity, or violence. The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and view point of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself."

"Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989)."

"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."

Snaquebite

03-02-2011, 11:49

I understand that the right to free speech is incorporated into an ammendment, privacy is set by precendent, but after reading the original suit it wasn't about the "church" protesting, but the "poem" the "minister" wrote condemning the way the Snyders raised their son. How is such a defaming poem protected under the first amendment?

tonyz

03-02-2011, 12:00

Justice Alito authored the dissent - worth the read - a snip.

"Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace without harassment does not undermine public debate. I would therefore hold that, in this setting,the First Amendment permits a private figure to recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by speech on a matter of private concern."

Roguish Lawyer

03-02-2011, 12:06

Opinion is here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Not a surprising decision at all.

[Oops -- looks like someone beat me to the punch with the link]

Roguish Lawyer

03-02-2011, 12:08

You can regulate the time, place and manner of speech. That's what happened here. Maybe they should have been farther away. But this decision is absolutely correct under the First Amendment, however disgusting these protesters are.

Sohei

03-02-2011, 12:09

One of the things that concerns me the most about this specific incident is that it would appear that we have lost "Hallowed Ground". There are some places and events that one would hope would be considered "Hallowed" whereby common decency would prevail.

Sigaba

03-02-2011, 12:14

Sohei

03-02-2011, 12:21

Who decides what is or isn't hallowed?

My whole statement was based on my opinion. I fully support ones right to protest, however, it would be nice to not have to deal with being protested while you are burying your family member because someone doesn't like the government. Individuals or groups could protest whatever cause it is they choose to protest without having to be present at the funeral. I, personally, would never protest someone while they are burying a loved one, regardless of my feelings towards them. To me, it is simply a matter of courtesy and nothing more. By decency, I should have more appropriately said courtesy.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/visiting.htm

Roguish Lawyer

03-02-2011, 13:11

My whole statement was based on my opinion. I fully support ones right to protest, however, it would be nice to not have to deal with being protested while you are burying your family member because someone doesn't like the government. Individuals or groups could protest whatever cause it is they choose to protest without having to be present at the funeral. I, personally, would never protest someone while they are burying a loved one, regardless of my feelings towards them. To me, it is simply a matter of courtesy and nothing more. By decency, I should have more appropriately said courtesy.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/visiting.htm

We worked on getting a TRO for one funeral where they were protesting, but local LEOs took care of it so never had to actually go to court.

wet dog

03-02-2011, 13:27

When one's right to "freedom of speech" (X), conflicts with one's right to "peaceful assembly" (Y), then I say brake out the 2nd Ammendment and defend your position.

Razor

03-02-2011, 13:35

Or what constitutes decency?

Who decides what constitutes hate speech? Isn't that a form of legislated decency?

Sigaba

03-02-2011, 14:00

Who decides what constitutes hate speech? Isn't that a form of legislated decency?Razor--

IMO, no. Laws that forbid hateful speech merely regulate behavior in certain situations. They do not address the propriety of the thoughts that spark the behavior.

Three broader questions:

Should members of the armed services be protected by law from hate speech?
Do we want to make issues of decency and courtesy points of law/public policy or do we want to addresses those concepts as cultural sensibilities that are in decline?
Are we who agree with The Sheepdog willing to comport ourselves in ways that we always walk the walk we talk. For example, if we insist on funerals as sacred events for the sake of the deceased's family and friends, do we apply that standard to all citizens--even the Westboro cult, those who lived dishonorable lives, and criminals?

Razor

03-02-2011, 14:44

I would contend that one interpretation of decency is in fact regulation of one's behavior, albeit self-regulation. Under that construct, hate speech laws would be an externally enforced form of public decency.

I have and continue to believe that, although undocumented in our Constitutional ammendments, freedom of thought is a critical "natural right", although it may not (and perhaps should not) always have a direct connection to freedom of action. One can attempt to influence another's thoughts, but it's currently (and hopefully forever) beyond our reach to regulate or control them.

I think the more important question is should there be a special category for "hate" speech, or "hate" crimes, or special classes of criminal victims? What is the second and third-order effects of unequal legal support and protection?

Richard

03-02-2011, 15:03

They're merely demonstrating their unyielding Christian beliefs IAW the strictest interpretation of the Bible and openly prosletyzing while exposing the abominations endorsed by our government and supported by our military against God's laws.

They also think BHO is the anti-Christ and the Pope is a false prophet.

How can we not appreciate such heartfelt passion?

Richard :munchin

The Reaper

03-02-2011, 15:14

Stras

03-02-2011, 16:02

I see no difference between the Westboro Church, the KKK, and the Aryan Nations and the actions that result from their "freedom of speech". KKK and Aryan nations have been charged in the past with inciting riots, hate crimes, etc.

Just waiting for someone to charge the WBC with a hate crime.. especially with whole "God Hates FAGS" .... yes, they have rights to..

The laws should apply equally with regard to hateful speech and hate crimes.

PRB

03-02-2011, 16:24

I'm really gald that the decision went this way and that emotions did not sway the SC in any way.
This would have set a terrible precedent in limiting free speech and opened the door to the interpretation of "What is hate speech".
I'm sure many Libs are PO'd today because they would have used this precedent to try and muzzle G Beck etc. as 'hate speech' or whatever.
Besides, we need less Fed Gov in our business anyway not more.

These cult scumbags will get their due somewhere/sometime.

Team Sergeant

03-02-2011, 16:58

It's hard to believe no one has lit up these assholes and claimed "temporary insanity"...... :munchin

Buffalobob

03-02-2011, 17:03

Where's Vlad the Impaler when you need him!

Pete

03-02-2011, 17:13

..........Just waiting for someone to charge the WBC with a hate crime.. especially with whole "God Hates FAGS" .... yes, they have rights to.. ..........

If you'll notice with all the "God hates Fags" retoric they throw out there really has not been much notice taken by the left in this country.

Could it be that the lefties realize Westboro members are realy on their side - just working under cover - so to say.

The Reaper

03-02-2011, 17:15

It's hard to believe no one has lit up these assholes and claimed "temporary insanity"...... :munchin

I thought the same thing, "I was crying too hard and lost control of my vehicle, officer."

TR

afchic

03-02-2011, 17:32

It's hard to believe no one has lit up these assholes and claimed "temporary insanity"...... :munchin

I was thinking the same thing this morning. They will get their come uppance eventually. I am sure there will be protests at one of their funerals when the time comes. Tit for tat will suck!

Utah Bob

03-02-2011, 18:14

This group is tiny in numbers (mostly family members) full of lawyers, and will eventually be gone from the scene. Unlike the Klan and various supremacist groups I do not see them recruiting many new members.

Publicity equals a win for them. They feed on it like catfish on bottom scum.
If anybody opened up a can of whoopass on them, that would also equal a win.

They need to be blocked from view as effectively as possible by counter protesters and veterans groups.

alright4u

03-02-2011, 19:01

It's hard to believe no one has lit up these assholes and claimed "temporary insanity"...... :munchin

I do not know how short my fuse would be if they showed up and disgraced the funeral of any SF man I know.

Snaquebite

03-02-2011, 19:13

Apparently as a result of this ruling the Snyders also have to pay Westboro's court costs. Bill O'Reilly just announced on TV he would pay them for the Snyders. Supposedly between $100K-$200K.......

lindy

03-02-2011, 19:19

Apparently as a result of this ruling the Snyders also have to pay Westboro's court costs. Bill O'Reilly just announced on TV he would pay them for the Snyders. Supposedly between $100K-$200K.......

I hope he pays in nickels...unrolled nickels.

alelks

03-02-2011, 19:24

So that means we also have the right to protest their church services, funerals, weddings, and other gatherings. :D

echoes

03-02-2011, 19:30

I do not know how short my fuse would be if they showed up and disgraced the funeral of any SF man I know.

Sir,

Any SF funeral that was to be potentially disgraced by these bottom feeding scum-bag-shit-for-brains-idiots,would see myself at your back, ready to dish out a plethora of Bitch-Slaps to thos sorry good-for-nothing punk-asses! Sir!

Holly

Utah Bob

03-02-2011, 19:34

So that means we also have the right to protest their church services, funerals, weddings, and other gatherings. :D

Absolutely, as long as you stay on public property. I hope some organization does.

Sdiver

03-02-2011, 22:03

So that means we also have the right to protest their church services, funerals, weddings, and other gatherings. :D

Absolutely, as long as you stay on public property. I hope some organization does.

Gents,
I have to disagree. I hope to hell NO ONE does anything like that, or claims "temporary insanity" as was posted earlier in this thread.

For if someone, or a group did, that's just the kind of publicity that these wack jobs would look for and WANT.

I'm not advocating that we should just ignore them and hope they go away, but let them have their moment in the Sun, and in time, they will loose steam and or step on the wrong shoes and will get their "Come Uppance".

My $0.02 :munchin

Todd 1

03-02-2011, 22:32

or step on the wrong shoes and will get their "Come Uppance".

I'm the wrong shoes.

Sigaba

03-02-2011, 22:44

I'm the wrong shoes.How does this sensibility square with your duties as a law enforcement officer?

Tree Potato

03-03-2011, 00:18

Justice Alito highlighted something the others ignored: this was an assault, and the defense didn't deny it. The location, timing, pre-release to the media, and words chosen to inflict serious pain and suffering on the mourning family, fully satisfy identifying this as IIED per existing case law.

“[S]uppose that A were physically to assault B, knowing that the assault (being newsworthy) would provide A with an opportunity to transmit to the public his views on a matter of public concern. The constitutionally protected nature of the end would not shield A’s use of unlawful, unprotected means. And in some circumstances the use of certain words as means would be similarly unprotected.”

Then ends (communication of a message) don't justify the means (intentionally inflicted emotional distress to gain media coverage).

Todd 1

03-03-2011, 00:56

How does this sensibility square with your duties as a law enforcement officer?

It squares just fine. I’ve been supporting and defending the constitution of the United States of America with my blood, sweat and tears since I was 18yrs old. :lifter
Most of the cemetaries in my area are private property with visitor rules. Goodbye Westboro assholes, no protesting here, stay on the street or go to jail. :lifter

Surgicalcric

03-03-2011, 00:56

How does this sensibility square with your duties as a law enforcement officer?

I would imagine it is not much different than my finding pleasure in watching them all choke to death. ;)

Crip

Viking

03-03-2011, 06:58

If I get swhwacked I DO NOT want my wife exposed to these POS! Please surround these idiots and put up a huge, tall black curtain around them and don't let them be seen. As "I" pass the curtain/wall, I want to hear flashbangs, concussion, and CS going off inside the curtain/wall. If they hate America and all we do so much, why don't they move to North Korea, Iran, China.....???

x SF med

03-03-2011, 09:48

This is a tough one for me - since I chose "...to defend and uphold the Constitution..." Protection of Free Speech is great, but I believe that propriety and decency and morality need to temper that speech, none of which has been practiced by WBC. If they were able to form more cogent arguments than "God Hates Fags" and "Kill All Military", then use a forum other than the funeral of a military person to foment ill will in the name of their (apparently) sadistic, bellicose and condemnatory God toward those who secured the freedoms they fervently use to defame and destroy them and their families.

My hope is that all WBC members be judged by their God, and be found to have failed in this mortal life only to be condemned to the tortures of the Hell they wish on others.

<rant off>

mark46th

03-03-2011, 15:54

Their Right to assemble and their Right of Free Speech should not be impeded. Where they are allowed to exercise these rights should be, say about 5 miles away.

Roguish Lawyer

03-03-2011, 16:13

Their Right to assemble and their Right of Free Speech should not be impeded. Where they are allowed to exercise these rights should be, say about 5 miles away.

LOL, agreed!

craigepo

03-04-2011, 11:56

I'm attaching a link to a short argument by a few authors, all of whom are "right". I really like Professor Amar's take, which essentially held that victim vulnerability needs to be taken into account when addressing 1st Amendment issues such as the Westboro morass. However, the other authors made some very good, concise points as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/10/06/free-speech-and-picketing-funerals/drawing-lines-against-harassment

Stras

03-04-2011, 12:12

I hope he pays in nickels...unrolled nickels.

In dirty Green Army issue socks, slapped up against the side of one's head.

Stras

03-04-2011, 12:20

in 2007 WBC tried to come to CO and protest one of the funerals. One of the 1% MCs asked that they not show up in a less than polite manner. IIRC, their permit was denied on account that the police couldn't guarantee their safety. Needless to say, they were NO-Shows.

Their church was destroyed in an Arson attack several years ago. don't rightly recall when, but think it was prior to 2005.

Having shielded families from these individuals for the last five years, just turn your back and ignore them.

Eventually they will go away.

If you protest their church location, now you're probably treading on the constitutional right in regards to Freedom of Religion. Don't think they won't throw that card in less than 5 min.

kgoerz

03-04-2011, 14:27

Funny how they can trample all over the right to own a Gun. But they won't touch these guys.

Dusty

03-04-2011, 14:45

Funny how they can trample all over the right to own a Gun. But they won't touch these guys.

Libs loathe soldiers and guns until they personally need either.

Golf1echo

03-04-2011, 15:35

" Having shielded families from these individuals for the last 5 years"
Stras, good on you! How can I get involved in that too? PM me if that would be best.

Utah Bob

03-04-2011, 16:28

Funny how they can trample all over the right to own a Gun. But they won't touch these guys.

I don't think SCOTUS has done that. At least in Heller.
It's the state and local governments that are big 2a tramplers.
Chicago, California, Massachusetts, et al.

kgoerz

03-04-2011, 16:39

I don't think SCOTUS has done that. At least in Heller.
It's the state and local governments that are big 2a tramplers.
Chicago, California, Massachusetts, et al.

Well then States should be able to make protesting a Military Funeral illegal. I think we might be seeing this shortly.

R3V3LATIONS

03-04-2011, 16:43

The WBC is nothing than a get rich quick scheme....by pissing people off enough to incite violence (and have an affirmitive defense by hiding behind a pervesion of the 1st Amen.) to where you can win lawsuit after lawsuit to line thier pockets with gold. There is no religious agenda...just thats the ruse they hide behind.

Of course, imo, someone should "spike the punch" like at a certain other cult meeting and write the whole thing off as a mass suicide :D