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

[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.

[Growler]

Trust me, guys, it frosts my cookies in a bad way that these clowns are going to call themselves "legitimized" by this decision; LCPL Snyder's funeral was here at St. John's in Westminster, and it took everything in my power to keep from acting stupid around those people. Fortunately, the Patriot Guard were there, and this community rallied around the Snyder family, and did what they could to protect them from the WBC short of violating anyone's - even those people's - Constitutional Rights.

[Bubblehead1980]

The problem with many people when it comes to an issue like this, they let emotions and empathy/sympathy interfere with rational judgement regarding constitutional rights of those they disagree with.The Westboro protesters are nutjobs and are beyond wrong in what they do, however even they have the right to protest.A decision against them would have had ramifications far beyond just protests at funerals and could be cited as legal cause to supress political speech against those in power etc one day.Supreme Court decisions have consequences that affect the country for many years, this decision was a victory for EVERYONE's constitutional rights.

[razark]

As much as I hate WBC and what they do, this decision was the right one.

Free speech rights are not in place to protect popular speech, because it needs no such protection. Free speech protects the people's rights to say unpopular things.

(But WBC is still a bunch of...)

Originally Posted by privateer

As a Patriot Guard Rider, I have met the Nut Cases face to face.

Thank you, sir.

[mookiemookie]

They're jackasses, but they have the right to be. And no one has the right not to be offended. But they're still jackasses.