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

[Ghonzor]

Most of the bikers who protect the funerals are themselves former soldiers. I'm glad they're doing what they're doing. Fuck Westboro. They're coming to Kentucky, or so they say. I hope they don't.

On the other hand...I have to agree with the free speech decision.

Paraphrased:

I may not agree with what you say, but I will die to defend your right to say it.

It would be especially hypocritical of me to disagree considering I just wrote a huge paper on the subject of free speech in terms of video games.

 

[redisforever]

And yet they still think they should be allowed to censor video games. I think seeing these psychos would be more poisonous to a child's mind than anything a game shows. At least games rarely preach intolerance and hatred. This is why I have no respect for the government. It sould at least be consistent.

Apparently it is worst to teach a child to kill, then to teach them to hate. But most people forget that hate leads to people who believe in "justiciable" killings of what they hate.

Sorry, but did you mean justifiable?

 

[Vausch]

Just out of curiosity, if I showed up at one of their funerals in a leather vest without a shirt and hot pants dancing, would I get sued because I'm being inappropriate or not honouring the deceased?

 

[LCP]

Just out of curiosity, if I showed up at one of their funerals in a leather vest without a shirt and hot pants dancing, would I get sued because I'm being inappropriate or not honouring the deceased?

i would totally be down for ironic punishment.

 

[Rayne870]

funerals should be decreed a private event, and the next of kin should be able to govern whom is present at the event. people interrupting that event should be charged with disturbing the peace and even harassment if it goes far enough.

protests have a time an place, interrupting memorial services is not the time and place. no ones opinion about war is going to change, they are at the funeral to pay respect to the person they know whom died.

if we let this go then every time anyone disrupts a funeral in such a manner i should be able to do the same to theirs, i should be able to bring a an air horn, fireworks, w/e the hell i want while i chant about how much better microsoft is than apple or some other meaningless crap i come up with on the spot. and i should be able to gather as many people as i want to do so. see how they like them apples.

people need to learn some dignity and understand just because its open air doesn't mean its public protesting grounds.

and for the record i would condone violence against these dirt-bags and against myself if i should ever sink to that level.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I agree that they have the right to protest. I also think that the bereaved should sue them for harassment. Litigate the bastards into oblivion.

 

[Daveman]

Yeah, free speech and that.

Now, when Fred Phelps dies who's up for picketing his funeral? I want a sign that says "God sent the cancer" or whatever.

 

[Volkov]

Unfortunately for you, your the person I'm going to pick on as you were the first one to say the liberal, nonsensical rhetoric.

This doesn't strike you as an unjustifiably self-important statement?

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it"
The above statement is so nonsensical it is ridiculous. Democracy is built on certain qualities such as liberty and equality. To allow the spread of inequality, whether it is through speech or other methods, is a complete contradiction to the concept of liberty. Therefore saying you'll fight to the death for the right to say anything is showing a complete misunderstanding of the nature of democracy.
Westboro should not be allowed to preach because they are preaching inequality - soldiers and homosexuals are lesser humans than themselves etc, likewise anyone picketing funeral marches. The only people who can judge someone as an in-equal to society is a judge when he convicts a felon.

OK, two very important things.
1). Democracy, as a way of government, is a way of making decisions. It does NOT imply a certain set of rights, other than right to vote for a to some degree limited group of population. Also, United States is not a democratic country, but that's irrelevant to this argument. Also, note how "democratic" and "freedom of speech" are, while often associated with each other, not actually requirements for each other. Democracy is the notion that important nation-wide decisions are made by a popular vote (i.e., NOT what happens in the US). Freedom of speech is the notion that people are allowed to freely express themselves and their ideas; in practice, this freedom is restricted by several caveats. See #2.

2). You ARE, actually, allowed to preach that some people are more equal than others. What you are NOT allowed to do, is CALL FOR ACTIONS that would result in someone's rights being violated (i.e., incite violence).

Now, that's in theory. In practice, it has been argued that preaching that, you know, whites are better than blacks, is equivalent to inciting violence, but it's the inciting of violence/crime that is illegal - not the peaceful proclamation of one group being more equal than another.

No that is not how freedom of speech works, read the above. Allowing anyone to speak is a complete contradiction to the basic principles of the freedom of speech.

When you cite something like "basic principles of freedom of speech" - are you referring to some specific, internationally recognized document/text here? Or just what you perceive those basic principles to be? I am just saying - one does have to wonder what makes you the authority to claim what basic principles of what is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right are, versus another forum member or some guy off the street.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

I think someone should give them a little of their own medicine...

This is a horrendous idea.

I believe a group of anonymous people did that once. they rallied WITH the WBC but wore the typical Vendetta mask with silly signs instead saying "This guy's a jackass ->", "I love men" etc etc.

basically they trolled the WBC and it was hilarious because they too were protected by the 1st ammendment and the WBC couldn't do anything about it.

 

[That One Six]

I agree entirely with the Supreme Court. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely loathe Westboro, and I go out of my way to make everyone else hate them, too, but, as it has been said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it". Can't discriminate against the minority, even if they are hate-spewing bastards.

Here's the deal though.

They are protesting at people's funerals calling the dead sons "pigs" "babykiller", and telling the families that they are going to hell.


During a funeral.

You can't yell fire in a movie theater, so why should you be able to destroy someone's mourning period over their dead family member? If they really can't be that lenient with the first amendment, then it really shouldn't be around at all.

I understand where you're coming from, but yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater can result in death or injury, whereas Westboro followed all the laws about protesting. I wish they'd broken a law, but in all reality, they're not really harming anyone. Sure, the stress to the family is awful, and if my child's funeral was protested, I'd flip out, but the Justices made the right call. It's their job to be unbiased. Just a suggestion, go read the dissenting opinion.

 

[crystalsnow]

I agree entirely with the Supreme Court. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely loathe Westboro, and I go out of my way to make everyone else hate them, too, but, as it has been said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it". Can't discriminate against the minority, even if they are hate-spewing bastards.

I think there are cases in which some things overstep these sort of bounds. Normally, I would agree with you here, but protesting ANYONE'S funeral, let alone a soldier, is something I would not tolerate if I saw.

 

[That One Six]

-Snip-

You praise equality, but if we were to force them to stop, would we not be oppressing them? And I'm a conservative, thanks. =P

 

[That One Six]

I agree entirely with the Supreme Court. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely loathe Westboro, and I go out of my way to make everyone else hate them, too, but, as it has been said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it". Can't discriminate against the minority, even if they are hate-spewing bastards.

I think there are cases in which some things overstep these sort of bounds. Normally, I would agree with you here, but protesting ANYONE'S funeral, let alone a soldier, is something I would not tolerate if I saw.

Neither would I. I'd probably start hitting people. But it's not my job to interpret the Constitution and keep us in an equal and free America. That's why nine Justices of high merit are chosen. I hate Westboro as much as anyone. That's why I'm just a civilian.

 

[New Troll]

Don't dishonor that soldier's death by hating thier actions. He died helping preserve thier right to do so.

Just as we have the right to protest them.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED