Supreme Court Justices Appear Ready To Rule Against Funeral Pickets

[Anti Federalist]

Supreme Court Justices Appear Ready To Rule Against Funeral Pickets

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1007-court-funerals-20101006,0,5187541.story

Washington — Despite free speech concerns, the Supreme Court justices sounded sympathetic Wednesday to a lawsuit filed by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by protestors with signs like "Thank God for IEDs."

The justices appeared inclined to set a limit to freedom of speech when ordinary citizens are targeted with especially personal and hurtful attacks. The First Amendment says the government may not restrict free speech, but it is less clear when it also shields speakers from private lawsuits.

The Phelps family from Topeka, Kansas has picketed at military funerals across the nation and proclaimed that God is punishing America and its soldiers because of its tolerance for homosexuality.

In 2006 they travelled to Maryland where they held anti-war and anti-gay signs at the funeral of Matthew Snyder, and they also put on their website a message that accused his father, Albert Snyder of having raised his son "to defy the Creator" and "serve the devil."

[amy31416]

I think the Phelps' want this to happen, and our "intellectual giants" in the Supreme court are going to give them what they want.

[erowe1]

I think the Phelps' want this to happen, and our "intellectual giants" in the Supreme court are going to give them what they want.

There's probably no better way to make bunches of people take the Phelps' side who never would have otherwise.

[Ekrub]

WBC is coming to my town (Spokane) to picket at Gonzaga University, a high school, Whitworth University at the end of the month. These guys are disgusting, but within their rights. I just wish the media would stop giving them the attention that they crave.

[LibertyVox]

If I were a brother of a fallen soldier, it'd be hard for me no to support this. I suppose overwhelming number of military families would.

[Anti Federalist]

If I were a brother of a fallen soldier, it'd be hard for me no to support this. I suppose overwhelming number of military families would.

That's how freedom is lost, when it becomes easier to tolerate infringements of freedom than the freedom itself.

If you want to live free you have to be willing to tolerate a lot of things you may not agree with.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That's how freedom is lost, when it becomes easier to tolerate infringements of freedom than the freedom itself.

If you want to live free you have to be willing to tolerate a lot of things you may not agree with.

Articulated like a modern TJ.

As many people have pointed out public property is public property.

[Pericles]

That's how freedom is lost, when it becomes easier to tolerate infringements of freedom than the freedom itself.

If you want to live free you have to be willing to tolerate a lot of things you may not agree with.

True - my solution is to give the protesters an unfiltered explication of my personal opinion of their strand of religion. I don't need some "authority" to do that for me.

[fisharmor]

True - my solution is to give the protesters an unfiltered explication of my personal opinion of their strand of religion. I don't need some "authority" to do that for me.

Yet they are still free to worship as they please.
The question I keep waiting for someone to ask is this:
Are the soldier's families free to worship the state unhindered?
Considering that the protesters are interfering with funeral services in devotion to the state-god, can they be stopped for interfering with freedom of religion?

[Deborah K]

What about the "hate speech" laws? :rolleyes: What's good for the goose and all....

[Inflation]

Remember, this is the court that ruled against the obviously satirical 'Bong Hits for Jesus' based on specious Drug Warrior penumbras and emanations.

These guys don't have a chance in Hell.

[Kludge]

The First Amendment says the government may not restrict free speech, but it is less clear when it also shields speakers from private lawsuits.

Trying to comprehend this statement has given me a headache. Could someone please explain it to me?

[libertarian4321]

If I were a brother of a fallen soldier, it'd be hard for me no to support this. I suppose overwhelming number of military families would.

As a soldier, who finds Phelps and his crew utterly abhorrent, I disagree.

Assholes should be allowed to be assholes in this country. That's why we have the first amendment, so that the government doesn't get to filter what speech is allowed.

[Dreamofunity]

Trying to comprehend this statement has given me a headache. Could someone please explain it to me?

Government cannot restrict speech outright, but when you target individuals oppose to general ideas or people of public life (Presidents, famous people), they can charge you (sue) $$$$$$$$$$$ to say it.

[Slutter McGee]

Yall are missing the issue. Nobody on the SC is going to say this is a criminal act. The question is about how a civil action is affected by the first amendment. Just saying...it never is completely simple.

That being said, I hope they rule in favor of the asshole Phelps. I can't stand the man. If he died tomorrow I would say a prayer of thanks. But let him speak.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Deborah K]

When does free speech cross the line into harassment? You all are aware of what happened before and after the funeral - right? And someone answer my question about "hate speech"? Are the courts now going to be selective as to who is a victim of it and who isn't? I know it isn't a part of this case - why that is alludes me - but just for shits and grins - someone explain why is doesn't apply here. I am against the hate speech laws in the first place, but can we at least be consistent ffs?

[erowe1]

When does free speech cross the line into harassment? You all are aware of what happened before and after the funeral - right? And someone answer my question about "hate speech"? Are the courts now going to be selective as to who is a victim of it and who isn't? I know it isn't a part of this case - why that is alludes me - but just for shits and grins - someone explain why is doesn't apply here. I am against the hate speech laws in the first place, but can we at least be consistent ffs?

What hate speech laws are you talking about?

[DirtMcGirt]

Yet they are still free to worship as they please.
The question I keep waiting for someone to ask is this:
Are the soldier's families free to worship the state unhindered?
Considering that the protesters are interfering with funeral services in devotion to the state-god, can they be stopped for interfering with freedom of religion?

This is a very good observation...I would think Cemeteries could easily get local municipalities to pass laws to "restrict noise and unauthorized gatherings(?) in a .5 mile radius of a cemetery to prevent the disruption of religious services."

[Deborah K]

What hate speech laws are you talking about?

Didn't Congress pass a law in '09 named after Mathew Shepherd that included hate speech?

[Stary Hickory]

I think I agree with Mike Church on this one that guy just needs an old fashioned ass whooping. Leave the courts out of it.

[erowe1]

Didn't Congress pass a law in '09 named after Mathew Shepherd that included hate speech?

I think that was hate crimes, which is different than hate speech.

I think, for example, if the Phelps' committed assault and battery against a gay person, then their hate speech could be used as a reason for upping the charge to a hate crime, rather than just assault and battery. But apart from that, I don't think there's a law against the speech all by itself.

Some other countries do have actual hate speech laws.

[Deborah K]

I think that was hate crimes, which is different than hate speech.

I think, for example, if the Phelps' committed assault and battery against a gay person, then their hate speech could be used as a reason for upping the charge to a hate crime, rather than just assault and battery. But apart from that, I don't think there's a law against the speech all by itself.

Some other countries do have actual hate speech laws.

oh, okay. I thought it included hate speech.

[erowe1]

oh, okay. I thought it included hate speech.

I think that it indirectly does, and that hate crimes laws are wrong for that reason and others. But I don't think it directly criminalizes hate speech by itself. It's just that it effectively criminalizes it by making it a basis for punishing other crimes more seriously than they would be without it.

My understanding was that the way that law differed from earlier hate crimes laws was that it extended them to include sexual orientation.

[wizardwatson]

This is a simple case of free speech. The fact that this father of a fallen soldier got awarded 13 million by some court in the first place is a tragedy of our legal system.

He doesn't have a "right to mourn his son in private free from harassment", as he says (paraphrasing). The fact that this church has gotten to SCOTUS because of this (when they predicted themselves that they would get there) lends more credibility to their message than takes from it (if you're a Christian).

Life, liberty and 'pursuit' of happiness. Not court ordered, guaranteed happiness.

Free speech is free speech. If SCOTUS sides with this father, I really wonder how far the slippery slope will go.