[Feuer Frei!]

Margie J. Phelps, daughter of church leader Fred Phelps and legal counsel for the group, appeared defiant and emboldened by the high court's decision during an interview Wednesday.

Let me tell you what this church does: Shut up all that talk about infliction of emotional distress. When you're standing there with your young child's body bits and pieces in a coffin, you've been dealt some emotional distress by the Lord your God.

Hahahah, oh dear

I very much appreciate the fact that I get to be the mouth of God in this matter

she told reporters.

That is just so wrong on all fronts.


Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority:

we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. Instead, the national commitment to free speech, requires protection of even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.

I see. Where does the line get drawn then?
The church's messages and their motives are far from attempting to encourage open and mature discussions, far from it.


Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the ruling that three factors required a ruling in favor of the church group. First, he said,

its speech was on matters of public concern. While the messages on the signs carried by its members may fall short of refined commentary,

That's one way to put it the chief justice wrote,

the issues they highlight — the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involving the Catholic clergy — are matters of public import.

I don't live in the States but the subject matter being protested is the same being protested in other countries.
They may be "public import" but it's how protesters get their message out, and how they behave themselves at protest rallies and the locations of where protest groups protest is surely important here, and elsewhere for that matter.
Second, he wrote,

the relationship between the church and the Snyders was not a private grudge

Well, let's hope not, certainly the decision against the plaintiff is wrong, whichever side you look at it from.
Goes back to my strong belief about the justice system failing arguement.
Third, the members of the church

had the right to be where they were. They were picketing on a public street 1,000 feet from the site of the funeral, they complied with the law and with instructions from the police, and they protested quietly and without violence.

Right, so the technical aspects of the protest were met, it's all ok now, let us give them, and countless other nutjob groups open ground to protest what and where they chose to.
Good call. Not.
To my knowledge, none of these buffer zones have ever been tested in Court.
The Courts need to address these issues, and the need to do so carefully.
What if members of the military or their families travel to Topeka, Kansas, everytime one of the churches congregation members pass, to protest at funerals there?