Supreme Court claims Protesting a soldier's Funeral is protected by 1st amendent

[spartan231490]

A small group of people, who claim to be a religion, protested a soldier funeral. Having signs calls the fallen man a murder. The family of the solider wanted legal action taken against this group. In an 8 to 1 decision from the Supreme Court this protest was protected by the 1st amendment.The group is now planning to protest more funerals.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110302/pl_yblog_exclusive/courts-ruling-in-funeral-protest-case-restates-first-amendment-principles

The law may protect these f*ck jobs, but one day they'll push their luck too far.

Good. I think what they do is horribly cruel, and in bad taste. but it is their right.

 

[theultimateend]

Look at it on the bright side. If they are right and there IS a hell every single person in that church is going to burn in hell. The deepest ring, in the darkest corner, tortured by the most diabolical of demons.

So really, we win if they are wrong, and we win if they are right.

Either way sucks to be the WBC.

I am somewhat surprised that this doesn't fall under verbal assault.

If I harassed a group of people when they are emotionally distressed I'm pretty sure I'd get arrested.

Pretty sure I'd lose the court battle too.

Similar to how police can't bait you into committing a crime, I'm surprised Citizens don't have similar laws over them.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Torn on the matter..

Though I will say this. People seem to forget that free speech does not override the pursuit of human dignity.

In short, a living ideology (political, religious and social) is fair game, a human's dignity is specifically out of bounds. I mean if you picket events like this what exactly are you trying to say?

People all too quickly rally under the banner of rights, but forget that rights mean nothing if there is not an equal or greater willingness to fight for basic responsibilities that should be expected by all.

One namely being that all must respect the individual and never deny the individual their sense of entitlement or dignity.

Society wouldn't function without the majority of people recognising that in order for rights to exist there must be a majority who recognise that it comes at the cost of responsibility

wow... well said. I think though, that dignity is better served when a person has the right to say what they believe without fear of reprisal from a group with more inherit power than an individual, than it is by silencing radical opinions in order to spare the insecure and easily manipulated individuals who lack the thick skin to realize that their accusers words actually have no weight.

I would suffer more by not being permitted to express my views than I would by being perpetually insulted.

on that note, FUCK THE WBC! and I'm so glad I can say that.

I disagree ... dignity does not, nor should ever, allow a repression of another's entitlement to respect. Certainly never in death.

Politicisation of death is the lowest of the low. It is a fundamental failing of moral character and decency that should be criminalised. Regardless of the politics, or specifically, an individual's politics, this man's death was a tragedy. It should never be used as a tool for the living to assert religious, social or political goals.

If you want to picket something, picket politicians at their Chamber of Offices ... not the funerals of it's victims.

Captcha:-

Spoiler

Google .... we have a problem...

 

[jakefongloo]

They already have. They get bricks thrown at them and biker gangs keep them a certain distance from such funerals out of respect for the soldiers.

I think it's more "out of respect for the dead" than "for the soldiers". A dead soldier deserves no more respect than a dead anybody else, really. After the Tucson shooting, for example, the bikers guarded the funeral of a 9-year old girl.

Right because a guy who gets crushed by a car he stole desearves the same respect as people who fight and die so that aforementioned asshole doesn't get his dick cut off for stealing.

OT: Westboro will die out. There's only like 12-30 of them in anyone area and if my pla....if by random chance they all contract ebola then fuck em.

 

[Korolev]

Actually, I'm glad the Supreme Court sided with them - it will deprive them of yet another excuse to wave the "victim" flag. If the Supreme Court had banned them, these WBC nutjobs would be screaming about their "oppression". They would become the poster-child of "religious freedom" and "free speech". But the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule against them deprives them of publicity and deprives them of another soap box.

I despise the WBC just like any sane person would. But the way to really hurt them is..... to ignore them. They're lone nuts in search of attention. Don't pay them attention = they lose.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

1% bikers Originated just after World war 2, by Returning Soldiers, so id Say its more a matter of Both Respect for the dead, and fallen soldiers

That like saying "I like both video games and video game RPGs". Fallen soldiers ARE dead, so respecting the dead includes respecting fallen soldiers.

theres a Caption up there somewhere about bikers staving these type Protesters away from a 9 year old girls Funeral, my Statement was Accurate

 

[ranyilliams]

This.

Seriously people need to stop complaining about other people "opinions". The reason they are called opinions is because they are not shared by everyone.

I'm not so sure you would respect other people's "opinions" if they were forcing them in your face at a brother/sister/mom/dad/dog's funeral.

Did you even read the thread?

Actually yes I did, and if people were doing this at any of my relatives funerals, i would ignore them. This kind of thing happens in life. get over it. getting upset because idiots are protesting at a funeral for someone who is fighting for their freedom is just ludicrous. the people protesting are selfish over-opinionated bigots who are grossly misinformed. Getting upset over what those idiots think is a waste of time. If they want to waste their lives protesting at funerals let them do it, and don't care, and don't listen...then they wont be able to get the message across if nobody would listen.

To be completely honest, I envy you.

The idiots were planning to protest the young girls funeral (happened about ten minutes from my house), I was livid. You may be able to ignore the crap that goes on in life, and I really wish I could too.

man you made it sound like i'm sitting in my basement covering my ears and trying to block out the world... im trying to live my life the way i want to live it. and im not about to get upset over things i cant control...why would it bother me...I respect the sacrifices those young men are making, i would never picket a funeral out of respect for the dead. if these people choose to, more power to them, im not the one doing it. but if anyone EVER tried to take away my ability to respect the dead in the way i want, i would fight back.

 

[Choppaduel]

I disagree ... dignity does not, nor should ever, allow a repression of another's entitlement to respect. Certainly never in death.

Politicisation of death is the lowest of the low. It is a fundamental failing of moral character and decency that should be criminalised. Regardless of the politics, or specifically, an individual's politics, this man's death was a tragedy. It should never be used as a tool for the living to assert religious, social or political goals.

If you want to picket something, picket politicians at their Chamber of Offices ... not the funerals of it's victims.

Captcha:-

Spoiler

Google .... we have a problem...

lol captcha is fun isn't it? imagine if there was no re-captcha.

Well we seem to disagree fundamentally on which human right takes priority over another, but lets put that aside for a minute and focus on the specifics of whats happening here with wbc.

Their primary message seems to be that "God hates fags/soldiers." Now, I see two cases here. 1 if you don't believe in God, then you're not really offended by this because you know they are delusional in their initial assumption, in other words you, an atheist or a deist, know that there is no God or that God cannot possibly convey that message to only a select group of people. In this first case, you see a person apparently suffering from dementia, you can't be offended by them.

For the second case, you subscribe to some religion, doesn't matter which one, you then know that God speaks to anyone and everyone or no one at all depending on your beliefs, but you definitely do not believe that God speaks to wbc members exclusively. In this case, you cannot be offended by the message of "God hates fags/soldier" because God has not conveyed that message to you through some miraculous means (30 people protesting with poorly designed signs is pretty unmiraculous don't you agree?)

The point of all this is, I think that wbc knows this. They now that no one is going to take their message to heart. I think that they want to call attention to the situation where anyone can say anything in the name of God, but that doesn't make it divine. Which means that no one can be certain that any message coming from another person is truly divine. I think that wbc is subtly calling people take a moment to think about their beliefs, whatever they may be.

Ok so I don't actually think that, I'm just entertaining the notion. I see wbc, and I can see a potential agenda to their madness. So who's crazy now? ...besides the people who think captcha is user friendly.

 

[Cuddlydemon]

I find it very strange that this is news to anybody. Westboro's been doing this for years. They actually make a lot of money off lawsuits filed against people who get angry and assault the protesters.

Arizona actually enacted emergency legislation barring any protests within 300 feet, and an hour before or after, a funeral, when they became aware that Westboro was going to picket the funerals of the shooting victims. That was in January (Have a source: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-11/us/arizona.funeral.westboro_1_kansas-church-westboro-baptist-church-fred-phelps?_s=PM:US ).

Seriously, nothing in the OP is news--WBC are assholes, free speech is free speech even if it's mean or stupid. However, Arizona legislature, on rare occasion, does something awesome.

 

[Sarge034]

Why did they not rule to make it unlawful to protest at ANY funeral? That way everyone can grive in peace and no one can clame it is unconstitutional since all funerals are protected, not just soldier's. I mean a funeral procession has right of way on the road and no one is calling that unconstitutional.

BTW, I have been a soldier's son for 20 years so I am very dissapointed in the current outcome. My Father spent 2.5 years in Desert Storm/Shield, 2 years in South Korea, and countless TDY trips to less then friendly places. If he died in the line of duty and these "people" showed up at the funeral, well.... Lets just say my mother will NOT be harrased at her husband's funeral. (NOT advocating violance, I promise)

But I do wonder about how far is too far? I saw a sign that said, "Thank God for IED's". I walked up and started talking with the person holding the sign. Through our conversation the person said they had lost their Father to cancer. Then was horrified when I yelled, "Thank God for CANCER!"

Just remember kids, the rules that protect you are great until they come back around and bite you in the ass.

 

[Darkauthor81]

Well if this is protected under free speech then we have nothing to worry about when they pass their ruling on video games.

 

[mjc0961]

Sadly, it is free speech.

I just hope they decide video games are not free speech though. If douchebags protesting funerals is okay but games are not, I'm going to be pissed.

Also, I don't support the "I will defend to the death your right to say it" part when it comes to those protesters. If someone wants to go beat the shit out of them I'm not going to be the one standing there saying "No! You have to get through me first, because these people have the right to be dickheads!" I mean yeah, I know it's just an expression meant to show how important free speech is. But I'm not taking it literally for those guys, no sir.

Arizona actually enacted emergency legislation barring any protests within 300 feet, and an hour before or after, a funeral, when they became aware that Westboro was going to picket the funerals of the shooting victims. That was in January (Have a source: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-11/us/arizona.funeral.westboro_1_kansas-church-westboro-baptist-church-fred-phelps?_s=PM:US )

+1 for Arizona. I like it. They can still rant and rave all they want; just not right in front of the grieving friends and family.

 

[Buccura]

As much as I hate to say it, it is fully protected and their right to do so, as sickening as it may be.

 

[RDubayoo]

Another thread mentioning Fred Phelps. Well, let me tell you guys something. Fred Phelps should not be able to go around trolling funerals at all. He has committed acts of brutal savagery against his own family for years, defrauded communities and businesses, and he was a lawyer before being disbarred for unethical conduct. The man should be in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

How has he gotten away with it? He's managed to do so because no one has had the guts to stand up to him, really. The cops knew that they should avoid him, because oh gosh, he might sue! And after Phelps was disbarred, that didn't stop him. He forced his kids to become lawyers so that they could fight his legal battles for him. Read all about it here:

http://blank.org/addict/

What's my point, aside from "he should be in jail, not picketing funerals"? My point is that Fred Phelps gets away with this sort of nonsense not because of any sort of concept of law or justice or fair play or whatever. He gets away with it because he's a master at intimidation and manipulating the system to his advantage. He's done it his whole life and apparently even the Supreme Court isn't immune. Do I think that people should be able to troll funerals? Maybe--but hey, if a state passes a law establishing that said trolling must occur a considerable distance away from the funeral, or whatever, then I think that's fine. If said trolls are escorted away for trying to incite a riot, that's cool with me, too. So basically, Fred Phelps and the broken legal system he's twisted to his advantage for years can both go to hell.

 

[Sageless]

Actually, I think that what they are doing would be considered slander, which is illegal. Also, lets pretend that they were protesting with signs saying God hates N-words, or other racial slurs, I guarantee that the courts would of ruled against them. Speech that is used just for the purpose off inciting violence or hatred should not be tolerated. They have no real goals, they just want to be the biggest jackoffs as possible.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

I would honestly be disappointed in the Supreme Court if they hadn't made this decision. As much as I loathe the WBC and similar hate-mongering attention whores, they have just as much of a right to express themselves as anyone else. Thankfully, groups like the bikers are exercising their rights in counter-protesting and stepping up as a vanguard.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

Free speech is complete and utter bullshit in my opinion (Not the concept, but the enforcement). The WBBC is a hateful group of Terrorists in my opinion. They use Hateful speech to Terrorize groups of people from various backgrounds and beliefs. Yet the legal system protects them? There have been cases in which people have been jailed for simply using free speech in the United States to expose corrupt people, yet when a group of people are inflicting evil upon others they are somehow protected?

Read this article and then tell me that you should still support the idea of letting the WBBC being protected by free speech when there are people who AREN'T using free speech for hate, and there ARE people unjustly treated for using free speech to better society: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/man-jailed-e-mails-sent-newspapers

In my opinion if someone is being as blatantly hateful as these people, they should NOT be protected by free speech. I personally would expect to have my ankles broken and dragged through the street if I ever said such hateful things to people. The irony is that even if I was to say that "Free Speech can suck my D**K!", my opinion is protected by that same law.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

The First Amendment is wrong.
The Constitution is wrong.

Just because something is hundreds of years old doesn't make it right.

 

[Pinstar]

So the law protects crap like this, but not stuff like this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.268403-Live-sex-shown-in-college-sexuality-class-professor-under-fire