Supreme Court rules 8-1 that Westboro Church has the right to protest

[Bubblehead1980]

Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist church nutjobs can protest at military funerals.While I despise their zealots and their message, I do agree with the decision, tough case.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...irst-amendment

[gimpy117]

they're stupid, but even stupid people have rights.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist church nutjobs can protest at military funerals.While I despise their zealots and their message, I do agree with the decision, tough case.

Aye. They have the right, as much as it grates my spine to say it. Thank whatever deity you wish for guys like the Patriot Guard Riders, and every other decent American who interposes him or herself between these vitriolic "Posterior Haberdashers" and the families of the deceased.

If it's their "Right" to free speech ,then doesn't that mean that other people would have the right to picquet and block off their church with demonstrations? seems to me it's all the same thing ,maybe someone might decide to do it back to them

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by darius359au

If it's their "Right" to free speech ,then doesn't that mean that other people would have the right to picquet and block off their church with demonstrations? seems to me it's all the same thing ,maybe someone might decide to do it back to them

I have not had time to read the full decision yet(going to in a little while, we will no doubt discuss the case in my class tomorrow) but my understanding from what I have read/heard on the news is they were not in view of the Marines family and other attendees of the funeral, so they were not harming the Marine's family per say.The father of the fallen actually said he only saw the top of the signs and only learned what they said until later.Simply put, the "can't cry fire in a crowded theater" argument(which is often used to argue against controversial/unwanted speech although that limit is in place to prevent abuse of free speech) did not apply here since their protest was doing no direct harm at the moment.8-1 is a pretty sweeping decision.Like it or not, the jerks get to protest.

Good news is they can be contained...

[Platapus]

I also abhor what that cult does, but I also agree that it was the right decision.

Our freedoms are never more tested then when they are applied to people we strongly disagree with.

[Rockstar]

Those goofballs are going first against the wall when I come into power.

[Feuer Frei!]

Errr what?
I read the link OP posted, ok, but at what distance are they allowed at the funeral to protest?
Regardless of nutjobs or not, i think that there are let's say more appropriate places to bleat your beliefs than a funeral, am i right?
No respect for the dead comes to mind here.
Sorry but i think that in this case certainly that it is in bad taste.
The mourners, would they hear the protesters? See them? Whilst they pay their respects to the deceased?
I know i for one would be outraged and disgusted if i was at a military funeral of a family member or close friend, letalone a funeral in general.
Sorry but that's b***crap!
Protest if you must, but do it with a bit of respect, and certainly not at a funeral
Doesn't matter what your beliefs are.
And as for the matter of 'freedom of speech' arguement?
Moot.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

they were not in view of the Marines family and other attendees of the funeral, so they were not harming the Marine's family per say.The father of the fallen actually said he only saw the top of the signs and only learned what they said until later.

Just saw this after i posted some of my questions, so seems a slight visibility still occurs.
I stand my ground and disagree with the decision.

[Feuer Frei!]

Aha, just did some research into this so-called 'group',
nutjubs indeed!

This article was posted back in Oct 7 2010, however is very relevant to this thread, if indeed the decision was made to reference to the linked case in particular, i am not sure, haven't gotten that far yet.
"The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that could redefine what constitutes free speech under the First Amendment. In the case, the father of slain Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder sued the small Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for emotional distress after church members protested outside his son's funeral with signs such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." Snyder was awarded $5 million in damages by a Maryland court for emotional distress, but that judgment was overturned on free speech grounds. Were Rev. Fred Phelps and his Westboro clan within their First Amendment rights?"
SOURCE

Thank God for dead soldiers eh?
Wooow!!! Nutjubs is an understatement.

[Armistead]

They came here to NC to protest at Elizabeth Edwards funeral, but were blocked by a human buffer of people, so luckily they didn't get near enough to disrupt it.

They were gonna protest another funeral here, but the dead vet's brother was a member of a biker gang here, the gang was gonna be there in mass, for some reason the church nuts went elsewhere.

As a Patriot Guard Rider, I have met the Nut Cases face to face.
I have stood my ground to stop them from approaching to close.
When they so much as touch me?
I file charges of assault!
They may not get convicted but it causes that person a lot of hassle in many ways!

"So, you want a job with the blahblahblah, eh? I see you have several assault charges on your record."

"But I was never convicted!"

"We'll 'coff, coff' call you."

[Freiwillige]

The sad thing about these nuts is that they pound this belief system into their own children often bringing them to protests.

That to me is putting your children in a hazardous environment. The state should take the kids!

And at the same time cut the head off the snake!

Kind of like De Nazification for the religious nuts.

[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?

We, by the Constitution, must protect even 'Nut Jobs'.
I don't believe it's a matter of rights.
Just a matter of bad taste on thier part.
Then a matter of lazyness on others part.
If all those agaist at thier action protested at one of thier funerals?
How long do you think the Morons would carry on?

The main problem with Americans today?
They can't do a damned thing as a group!
We are all to stuck up our own behinds to suffer a bit to try to improve anything.

Try to get all Americans to NOT buy Gas for a day, let alone a week.
It would be as easy as walking to the Moon.