SCOTUS: Westboro has right to protest at Military funerals

[Snaquebite]

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...h-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]

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???

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

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

[lindy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by The Sheepdog

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.

Who decides what is or isn't hallowed? Or what constitutes decency?

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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]

Originally Posted by The Sheepdog

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Or what constitutes decency?

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