Supreme Court to rule on picketing military funerals

[disorderlyvision]

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/03/supreme-court-to-rule-on-picketing.php


The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in three cases. In Snyder v. Phelps [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will take up the controversial issue of picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in combat. Reverend Fred Phelps and members of the Westboro Baptist Church [church website; JURIST news archive] have been traveling around the country picketing military funerals in recent years, claiming US soldiers have been killed because America tolerates homosexuals. The court has been asked to consider three issues:
1. Does Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell [opinion text] apply to a private person versus another private person concerning a private matter?

2. Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech tenet trump the First Amendment's freedom of religion and peaceful assembly?

3. Does an individual attending a family member's funeral constitute a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication?
The suit was brought [JURIST report] by the family of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder after Phelps and members of his church picketed his funeral. A federal judge awarded the family [JURIST report] almost $11 million in damages, but the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding [opinion, PDF] that Phelps's speech was protected under the First Amendment [text].

In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether § 22(b)(1) [text] of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which expressly preempts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers "if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings," preempts all vaccine design defect claims. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the act preempts all design defect claims.

In National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether the government violates a federal contract employee's constitutional right to informational privacy when it asks in the course of a background investigation whether the employee has received counseling or treatment for illegal drug use that has occurred within the past year. The court will also consider whether the government violates a federal contract employee's constitutional right to informational privacy when it asks the employee's designated references for any adverse information that may have a bearing on the employee's suitability for employment at a federal facility. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government had violated the employee's right to privacy, and denied [opinion, PDF] a petition for an en banc rehearing

[TER]

The fact that people are picketing funerals of killed soldiers is more depressing than anything on Drudge today... :(

[BlackTerrel]

I'm Baptist and I hate that these guys identify themselves as such. They are one dude and his extended inbred family.

[dannno]

They are doing it with masks, this is a false flag operation designed to restrict our first amendment rights. That imbred guy is an operative of the govt.

[__27__]

If you don't support Phelps' right to free speech you don't support free speech.


He disgusts me, be he has a right to do what he does. If SCOTUS rules against him they are ruling against you as well.

[JK/SEA]

If you don't support Phelps' right to free speech you don't support free speech.


He disgusts me, be he has a right to do what he does. If SCOTUS rules against him they are ruling against you as well.

Well, if it were my son's military funeral with these guys showing up, i would get up, pull out my glock, chamber a round as i was walking towards them.

I think i would be justified. Would i fire?...couldn't say. Emotions are a tricky thing.

[rancher89]

If you don't support Phelps' right to free speech you don't support free speech.


He disgusts me, be he has a right to do what he does. If SCOTUS rules against him they are ruling against you as well.

I'm with you. I also feel for the family.



TPTB moved the "free speach zones" further away from "their gatherings" over the years because they could spend our tax money doing it. If a private family wants the same "protection" they have to pay for it.

[Krugerrand]

If you don't support Phelps' right to free speech you don't support free speech.


He disgusts me, be he has a right to do what he does. If SCOTUS rules against him they are ruling against you as well.

Because of the same disgust, I hate to agree - but I do. There are better ways to solve this than by passing a law.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think the solution is simpler than one might think. Per the free association clause, the family of the slain Marine has the right to invite/disinvite whosoever they choose. If the cemetery director were to use a simple legal device of including "rent for the entire property" within the existing (not expanded) service fees, then it would be up to the family who they did and did not want involved in their private gathering, and the Westboro 1st Chirch of Everything Hateful could legally be denied access to all cemetery property without the cemetery director falling in danger of charges of discrimination.

The problem becomes 1) very small cemeteries would not provide enough buffer to protect the family, and 2) even in large cemeteries, families would be restricted to the "middle" area in order to ensure enough buffer to keep the jackasses at bay.

Personally, I believe that Almighty God has a particularly gruesome place in hell reserved for the demon Phelps. That's not a judgment, just an opinion.

[GunnyFreedom]

If you don't support Phelps' right to free speech you don't support free speech.


He disgusts me, be he has a right to do what he does. If SCOTUS rules against him they are ruling against you as well.

Problem is that you don't recognize the inherent catch-22 that SCOTUS is in here. BOTH parties have a 1st Amendment position. Phelps argues freedom of speech. The family argues freedom of association. Both are in the same 1st Amendment. Let me flip the coin on what you just said, and see of you catch the dilemma that SCOTUS is in right now:

If you don't support the family's right to associate with whom they choose, then you don't support the right of free association.

The war disgusts me, but neither the soldier nor his family are responsible for it, and they have a right to gather and associate with whomever they choose, and to exclude from their gatherings and associations whomever they choose. If SCOTUS rules against the family of this Marine, they are ruling against you as well.

[GunnyFreedom]

Because of the same disgust, I hate to agree - but I do. There are better ways to solve this than by passing a law.

SCOTUS doesn't pass laws.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm with you. I also feel for the family.



TPTB moved the "free speach zones" further away from "their gatherings" over the years because they could spend our tax money doing it. If a private family wants the same "protection" they have to pay for it.

MEH. Free speech zones is absolutely the wrong answer. Private property rights are the correct answer. Nobody's right to speech trumps my right to property. If Phelps is in my house or on my land spewing his hatefullness, I have every right to remove him, or to have him removed, by force and with the police if absolutely necessary.

The solution is to identify the private property in the area that would create a large enough buffer zone to protect the family from unwanted intrusion, and enter into agreement with the owners of this private property to loan/lease dominion over the property to the attending family for the duration of the service. Then it becomes a straight forward free-association property rights vs speech question which is much much simpler to determine.

[Krugerrand]

SCOTUS doesn't pass laws.

:o - embarrassing on my part.

- but some on the bench may not agree with you.

[amy31416]

Why hasn't someone beaten the living crap out of the WB "Baptist church" people yet?

I simply can't imagine my family at a funeral that was being picketed in such a manner not going and punching one of them in the jaw. I don't have a particularly violent family or anything, but there's just no way that they'd tolerate such a thing.

[__27__]

Problem is that you don't recognize the inherent catch-22 that SCOTUS is in here. BOTH parties have a 1st Amendment position. Phelps argues freedom of speech. The family argues freedom of association. Both are in the same 1st Amendment. Let me flip the coin on what you just said, and see of you catch the dilemma that SCOTUS is in right now:

If you don't support the family's right to associate with whom they choose, then you don't support the right of free association.

The war disgusts me, but neither the soldier nor his family are responsible for it, and they have a right to gather and associate with whomever they choose, and to exclude from their gatherings and associations whomever they choose. If SCOTUS rules against the family of this Marine, they are ruling against you as well.

No, they don't. Freedom of association and dissociation involve private property rights. If the family is conducting the funeral on THEIR private property, they have a right to keep him from that private property. If the property owner where the funeral is being held decides to keep Phepls out, that is his right. But in either case, they do not have a right to keep Phelps from free speech on public property. Freedom of association does not mean that if I am standing on a public sidewalk I can tell anyone I do not want around me that they have to vacate my surrounding area. It doesn't mean that I get to go into a movie theater and demand that the guy next to me be moved because I don't want him sitting next to me.

When laid out in this fashion the solution is glaringly obvious, public property must go. Private property is the recourse through which you protect your own rights.

[GunnyFreedom]

:o - embarrassing on my part.

No worries, it is very easy to misspeak, even about something you know solid, when you are filled to the gills with bile and passion. This thing know!


- but some on the bench may not agree with you.

Now that's the dam truth!

[__27__]

MEH. Free speech zones is absolutely the wrong answer. Private property rights are the correct answer. Nobody's right to speech trumps my right to property. If Phelps is in my house or on my land spewing his hatefullness, I have every right to remove him, or to have him removed, by force and with the police my PDA if absolutely necessary.

The solution is to identify the private property in the area that would create a large enough buffer zone to protect the family from unwanted intrusion, and enter into agreement with the owners of this private property to loan/lease dominion over the property to the attending family for the duration of the service. Then it becomes a straight forward free-association property rights vs speech question which is much much simpler to determine.

With the one change, I agree. Private property is the answer, government is not.

[rancher89]

MEH. Free speech zones is absolutely the wrong answer. Private property rights are the correct answer. Nobody's right to speech trumps my right to property. If Phelps is in my house or on my land spewing his hatefullness, I have every right to remove him, or to have him removed, by force and with the police if absolutely necessary.

The solution is to identify the private property in the area that would create a large enough buffer zone to protect the family from unwanted intrusion, and enter into agreement with the owners of this private property to loan/lease dominion over the property to the attending family for the duration of the service. Then it becomes a straight forward free-association property rights vs speech question which is much much simpler to determine.

Of course, but like you pointed out earlier, the smaller cemetaries, possibly inside the city limits for example, would be problematic. Your solution would, unfortunately, also restrict those who have a right to visit a relative or friend's gravesite on the cemetary grounds. It would also be fairly difficult to keep protesters away from the entrance to the church (or whatever.)

Not a simple problem, certainly not a simple answer.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, they don't. Freedom of association and dissociation involve private property rights. If the family is conducting the funeral on THEIR private property, they have a right to keep him from that private property. If the property owner where the funeral is being held decides to keep Phepls out, that is his right. But in either case, they do not have a right to keep Phelps from free speech on public property. Freedom of association does not mean that if I am standing on a public sidewalk I can tell anyone I do not want around me that they have to vacate my surrounding area. It doesn't mean that I get to go into a movie theater and demand that the guy next to me be moved because I don't want him sitting next to me.

When laid out in this fashion the solution is glaringly obvious, public property must go. Private property is the recourse through which you protect your own rights.

Not saying I don't buy into the philosophy here, but the 1st Amendment says nowhere in it that the right of free association is dependent upon ownership of a given property. Do you honestly believe that the Founders felt that the only people who should have the freedom of association were wealthy property owners?

It's not as much a question of property as it is dominion. In the open public, I have dominion over the area as far as my arms can reach. If I host a gathering of 15 people on a public sidewalk, and we are all within arms reach of one another, and a stranger tries to butt his way into our group, then sorry, we have every right in the world to exclude him, public sidewalk or not.

[Southron]

Why hasn't someone beaten the living crap out of the WB "Baptist church" people yet?

I simply can't imagine my family at a funeral that was being picketed in such a manner not going and punching one of them in the jaw. I don't have a particularly violent family or anything, but there's just no way that they'd tolerate such a thing.

I suspect this would solve the problem once and for all.

[RideTheDirt]

I suspect this would solve the problem once and for all.
qft

[dannno]

I think the solution is simpler than one might think. Per the free association clause, the family of the slain Marine has the right to invite/disinvite whosoever they choose. If the cemetery director were to use a simple legal device of including "rent for the entire property" within the existing (not expanded) service fees, then it would be up to the family who they did and did not want involved in their private gathering, and the Westboro 1st Chirch of Everything Hateful could legally be denied access to all cemetery property without the cemetery director falling in danger of charges of discrimination.

The problem becomes 1) very small cemeteries would not provide enough buffer to protect the family, and 2) even in large cemeteries, families would be restricted to the "middle" area in order to ensure enough buffer to keep the jackasses at bay.

Personally, I believe that Almighty God has a particularly gruesome place in hell reserved for the demon Phelps. That's not a judgment, just an opinion.


Exactly, this is a property rights issue. I mentioned in the other thread the cemetary should be able to throw them out.

I still think it is turned into a 1st amendment issue for nefarious purposes.

[MelissaWV]

Cemetaries which frequently bury veterans might simply pre-emptively ban these people from their property. It would make a very nice "selling point" imo. As for their right to come onto cemetary property... well... I'm sure none of them have military kin, and if so, they can forsake the right to visit them there. They can also be buried somewhere else. They really shouldn't be sharing soil with those they hate so much.

I agree that small cemetaries can have a problem, but those locations can arm themselves with knowledge of local ordinances. Are there, for instance, obscure laws regarding noise pollution? Can there be a restraining order enforced against the protestors by the location (which would require them to be x number of feet away)?

Frankly, I don't think I'd beat anyone up, or shoot them, but I do hope that someone decides to get a small group together and protest outside their homes, schools, workplaces, and favorite shopping center. Hound them day and night. Chant. Say horrible things about their loved ones. Ruin any social gathering they might try to put together. Obscure their views, hamper their movements, and generally make their lives really stinky. When they get mad, make sure to point out that it's a peaceful protest over how they are treating military families.

[New2Libertarianism]

I've heard from a friend that Phelps' father was in the CIA

[Rocket80]

I agree with the whole property rights angle.

But on another note, I also agree with the 'beat them up' angle....I mean, take that to a jury and the odds are probably better than you think. It's a pretty sympathetic case.

[Rael]

I recall seeing a video where they were in a bus being pelted with rocks IIRC.

It's too bad someone has not beaten the shit out of them. I think a few incidents like that would end this behavior.

The solution is simple though...have the cemetery owners disallow protesters and have any protesters arrested for trespassing.

[Rael]

YouTube - Westboro Gets their ass kicked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGKx2pTBQc)

[angelatc]

SCOTUS doesn't pass laws.

They're not supposed to. Slightly different.

[Pericles]

Well, if it were my son's military funeral with these guys showing up, i would get up, pull out my glock, chamber a round as i was walking towards them.

I think i would be justified. Would i fire?...couldn't say. Emotions are a tricky thing.

Apropros of nothing whatsoever - please allow me to relate the history of the Nazi Party in Switzerland-

After their victory in German elections, branches were established in other German speaking countries (Austria and Switzerland) as part of the Grosses Reich (greater empire) and the party gained some traction and grew. Not all Swiss thought the idea of Switzerland becomming part of the Reich was a good idea, and David Frankfurter had enough. In December of 1936, he murdered the head of the Swiss Nazi party with a pistol. Frankfurter went to prison, and the rest of the Nazi Party got the message. By the summer of 1937, there was no Nazi party in Switzerland.

Just sayin'.

[Brian4Liberty]

Playing King of the (Snow) Hill with protesters:

YouTube - Westboro Baptist vs. Angry Nevadan Bikers pt2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQIumgq25s)

[wizardwatson]

Why hasn't someone beaten the living crap out of the WB "Baptist church" people yet?

I simply can't imagine my family at a funeral that was being picketed in such a manner not going and punching one of them in the jaw. I don't have a particularly violent family or anything, but there's just no way that they'd tolerate such a thing.

Well, I live in Topeka, and unfortunately have to share the same town as Fred. Fred's family is full of lawyers and he knows exactly how far he can push his agenda. Also, the video shows that most of Fred's group in that instance were older. Usually, he uses kids between the ages of about 10 and 15 to do the picketing, which deters most people from doing anything aggressive.

His church was firebombed in Topeka some years back so barring him dying of natural causes, I doubt an ass-beating is going to change his mentality.

I usually see them picketing somewhere in town every couple months, but this funeral picketing stuff is getting them a lot of national attention so they've been doing a lot of out-of-state activities.

I remember when I first moved out here about 10 years ago, and I first saw his people picketing with the "god hates ****", "AIDS cures ****", "Thank God for 9/11", "Thank God for IED's", etc. as well as picture based signs that show two guys having anal intercourse, and then to see those signs being held up by children... I was like, "Where the hell did I just move to?!"

[BlackTerrel]

Why hasn't someone beaten the living crap out of the WB "Baptist church" people yet?

I simply can't imagine my family at a funeral that was being picketed in such a manner not going and punching one of them in the jaw. I don't have a particularly violent family or anything, but there's just no way that they'd tolerate such a thing.

I posted the same in another thread. Apparently they are protected by the police according to a poster.

[Baptist]

They are doing it with masks, this is a false flag operation designed to restrict our first amendment rights. That imbred guy is an operative of the govt.

Out of all the users on this forum, you entertain me the most.

[pcosmar]

They are universally scorned by any Christians I have met.
They are also the reason that this group was formed.
http://www.patriotguard.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Patriotguard.JPG/800px-Patriotguard.JPG

[BlackTerrel]

Well, I live in Topeka, and unfortunately have to share the same town as Fred. Fred's family is full of lawyers and he knows exactly how far he can push his agenda. Also, the video shows that most of Fred's group in that instance were older. Usually, he uses kids between the ages of about 10 and 15 to do the picketing, which deters most people from doing anything aggressive.

His church was firebombed in Topeka some years back so barring him dying of natural causes, I doubt an ass-beating is going to change his mentality.

I usually see them picketing somewhere in town every couple months, but this funeral picketing stuff is getting them a lot of national attention so they've been doing a lot of out-of-state activities.

I remember when I first moved out here about 10 years ago, and I first saw his people picketing with the "god hates ****", "AIDS cures ****", "Thank God for 9/11", "Thank God for IED's", etc. as well as picture based signs that show two guys having anal intercourse, and then to see those signs being held up by children... I was like, "Where the hell did I just move to?!"

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

How are they financed? Traveling around the country, paying for law school for his family, how do they afford all that? Are they actually working as lawyers? Somehow I can't see this inbred working a 9-5 and then going out and protesting at night.

[Baptist]

Count me in the group that would rather localities deal with this problem instead of the SCOTUS.





Frankly, I don't think I'd beat anyone up, or shoot them, but I do hope that someone decides to get a small group together and protest outside their homes, schools, workplaces, and favorite shopping center. Hound them day and night. Chant. Say horrible things about their loved ones. Ruin any social gathering they might try to put together. Obscure their views, hamper their movements, and generally make their lives really stinky. When they get mad, make sure to point out that it's a peaceful protest over how they are treating military families.


http://www.doublebarreledopinions.com/5.htm

[Toureg89]

The fact that people are picketing funerals of killed soldiers is more depressing than anything on Drudge today... :(
religious fanaticism is religious fanaticism...

[amy31416]

I posted the same in another thread. Apparently they are protected by the police according to a poster.

Well there's a fantastic use of taxpayer dollars!

[Toureg89]

ok. there's a difference between "protecting" WBC members, and keeping the peace.

would you rather the cops/government let crowds of vigilantes kill them because they hold a differing opinion, but haven't been convicted of any real crime?

[amy31416]

ok. there's a difference between "protecting" WBC members, and keeping the peace.

would you rather the cops/government let crowds of vigilantes kill them because they hold a differing opinion, but haven't been convicted of any real crime?

I didn't say that anyone should kill them, I would be okay with them not receiving special protections.

Personally, if they were to come to my town, I would petition diligently that my local police force not waste a minute or a dime protecting them. I would also inform the WBC members that they were on their own and could make up their own mind as to the wisdom of such a stunt.

If I were a big guy, especially if it were my relative, I'd definitely pop the old dude and take the heat. Just my opinion, and yes, I understand freedom of speech, etc.

[MelissaWV]

ok. there's a difference between "protecting" WBC members, and keeping the peace.

would you rather the cops/government let crowds of vigilantes kill them because they hold a differing opinion, but haven't been convicted of any real crime?

If someone beats these guys up, they should be prepared to take punishment for it. I don't think anyone's looking for a freebie on this, though a jury would have a tough time convicting, say, a grieving father who punches someone yelling "God hates **** like your son!" at his son's funeral.

The police "protecting" pre-emptively has always seemed a bit silly to me. Their presence might be warranted, so that any assaults are short-lived and the offending parties can be arrested quickly... but protecting one party over another is idiotic, and assuming one side is going to kill the other side is doubly idiotic.

[Toureg89]

I didn't say that anyone should kill them, I would be okay with them not receiving special protections.
well, they are so hated (even though that hatred is warranted), i don't see how someone wouldn't take a shot at killing them if police weren't around.

if people are willing to throw bricks in police presence, i don't see how they aren't willing to do worse without police presence.
YouTube - Westboro Baptist Church Attacked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVb0ifzw4d4)

[Toureg89]

...but protecting one party over another is idiotic

well, obviously police presence benefits aren't only one sided. if the WBC people were to attack those who disagree with them, LE should be just as apt to arrest the WBC member and hold them for their crimes.

it just so happens that the WBC members are the ones who are most benefited because they are a target of violence for so many people because of their controversial/intolerant/(insert negative descriptor here________) views and actions.


and assuming one side is going to kill the other side is doubly idiotic.
let me rephrase, then. there seems to be a warranted need for LE presence at WBC protests for the perceived risk of violent outbreak, no matter if its WBC or the opposing protesters who are the offenders.

[amy31416]

well, they are so hated (even though that hatred is warranted), i don't see how someone wouldn't take a shot at killing them if police weren't around.

if people are willing to throw bricks in police presence, i don't see how they aren't willing to do worse without police presence.
YouTube - Westboro Baptist Church Attacked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVb0ifzw4d4)

Well, as I stated in the rest of my post--I would be kind enough to inform them that they would not have police protection, and that they could protest a funeral at their own peril.

Local communities decide where they want their tax money spent, and if a local community does or doesn't support them, fine. I was just saying that I would not be in favor of one of my community resources being used to protect them, especially considering that I'd want to punch one of them. :)

Within their own community, I think you could make the argument that they are members and deserve protection--outside of it, and you've lost that argument.

[Toureg89]

Local communities decide where they want their tax money spent, and if a local community does or doesn't support them, fine. I was just saying that I would not be in favor of one of my community resources being used to protect them, especially considering that I'd want to punch one of them. :)

Within their own community, I think you could make the argument that they are members and deserve protection--outside of it, and you've lost that argument.
i guess i can agree with this. :D

[dannno]

Apparently they are protected by the police according to a poster.

More evidence of false flag.. these are just like the Anarchists at the damn peace/anti-IMF protests... police protection, nobody else wants them there and they are hurting the cause of liberty.

[QueenB4Liberty]

More evidence of false flag.. these are just like the Anarchists at the damn peace/anti-IMF protests... police protection, nobody else wants them there and they are hurting the cause of liberty.

I would hardly say the WBC are false flag just because they have police protection.

[literatim]

Well, as I stated in the rest of my post--I would be kind enough to inform them that they would not have police protection, and that they could protest a funeral at their own peril.

Local communities decide where they want their tax money spent, and if a local community does or doesn't support them, fine. I was just saying that I would not be in favor of one of my community resources being used to protect them, especially considering that I'd want to punch one of them. :)

Within their own community, I think you could make the argument that they are members and deserve protection--outside of it, and you've lost that argument.

So does that mean they can openly carry rifles and other firearms to defend themselves? Then shoot anyone that looks to be a threat?

I thought one of the reasons for a government is to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. Thus when a community invests in a police force it is there to protect the rights of everyone within their area of power. Not just that of the majority, but the minority as well. These people are a minority.

[nobody's_hero]

+1 for the Patriot Guard reference earlier. I'm not that big on "patriotism" but I think they do an outstanding service to family members who only get one chance to lay their loved ones to rest. Plus, if I were dead, I think it would be awesome to have a motorcycle motorcade escort my body to the grave site.

[amy31416]

So does that mean they can openly carry rifles and other firearms to defend themselves? Then shoot anyone that looks to be a threat?

I thought one of the reasons for a government is to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. Thus when a community invests in a police force it is there to protect the rights of everyone within their area of power. Not just that of the majority, but the minority as well. These people are a minority.

Yep. They can have firearms as long as they're not in violation of local laws.

They don't have the right to intentionally drain the resources of another community. If they want to do it in their own, fine. But I'm sure as hell not going to approve of any of my community's resources going toward protection for their own asininity.

In addition to rights, we also have responsibility that goes hand-in-hand.

[literatim]

Yep. They can have firearms as long as they're not in violation of local laws.

They don't have the right to intentionally drain the resources of another community. If they want to do it in their own, fine. But I'm sure as hell not going to approve of any of my community's resources going toward protection for their own asininity.

In addition to rights, we also have responsibility that goes hand-in-hand.

They have the right to free speech and the government is there to protect that right. Sorry, but your community is not a nation-state of its own and as such cannot stop people from entering its borders. If someone is within their borders, they have an obligation to protect that person's rights whether you like them or not.

Are telling me that there isn't a single person within your community that would support these people? I find that highly unlikely.

[amy31416]

They have the right to free speech and the government is there to protect that right. Sorry, but your community is not a nation-state of its own and as such cannot stop people from entering its borders.

Are telling me that there isn't a single person within your community that would support these people? I find that highly unlikely.

Nope. Not telling you anything of the sort. I am saying that they don't have the right to continually and intentionally drain the resources of other communities.

Does a community not have the right to refuse someone pre-emptive police protection, if they so choose? I don't have pre-emptive police protection (thank god) and don't think they should either.

[BlackTerrel]

ok. there's a difference between "protecting" WBC members, and keeping the peace.

would you rather the cops/government let crowds of vigilantes kill them because they hold a differing opinion, but haven't been convicted of any real crime?

It's an interesting use of taxpayer money. Government doesn't need to get involved at all. If you act like an idiot you're on your own.

[RedStripe]

Intentional infliction of emotional distress? Sounds like a reasonable civil cause of action, in general.

It's like calling up people and telling them (falsely) that a dear family member has died.

[catdd]

I resent our tax dollars being used to protect them.

[LibForestPaul]

Well, if it were my son's military funeral with these guys showing up, i would get up, pull out my glock, chamber a round as i was walking towards them.

I think i would be justified. Would i fire?...couldn't say. Emotions are a tricky thing.

You should be worried about your son murdering people in a far off land and winding up in hell and why you did nothing to stop it.

[Chester Copperpot]

arent cemeteries private property? Cant the church keep people off the property?

[BlackTerrel]

You should be worried about your son murdering people in a far off land and winding up in hell and why you did nothing to stop it.

Seriously? You're going to go on the side of Phelps on this one?

[catdd]

arent cemeteries private property? Cant the church keep people off the property?

They have loudspeakers and bullhorns. Seems like they could be arrested for disturbing the peace but they don't.
The Patriot Guard Riders always fire up the Harleys to drown them out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders