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

[Throwitawaynow]

Anyone remember the Jackson trial, when a group of black teenagers beat up some white kids, then the NAACP showed up to support the black kids? While they were outside protesting, 2 rednecks in a pickup truck drove by with a noose in the back, they were arrested for inciting a riot. I don't see the difference.

That's an indicator of violent intent. It would be like brandishing a rolling pin or something in a riot. Even though a rolling pin isn't technically a weapon. In a situation like that you can tell what they were planning on doing with it.

It's different in that these fucks know where to draw the line, so that in legal terms. They're not accountable for whatever happens.

Well almost any act can incite a riot, and I think some of the things written on their signs, and what they chant can give about the same threat as what those 2 did. But you're right in that they know how to toe the line so in legal terms it would be hard to decide. I'm kind of thinking that they should have known better than to take them to court. They got the official stamp of approval that they won't be prosecuted for what they're doing.

 

[Kortney]

I'm sorry, I feel speech is either free, or it isn't. And if it isn't, you damned well better be prepared to not be able to say something you want when it's legislated against.

I don't view things as black and white. Nor do most governances. We'll just let this disagreement slide because no one is going to change their mind.

See, you don't think the WBC has a valid point so we should suppress them where we see fit. But if we suppress the Muslims, that's discrimination.

Because surpressing Muslims over 9/11 makes no rational sense. You cannot logically arrive at that position and still be a rational person. The WBC do protest people's funerals and they are objectively, the perpetrators. Al Qaeda is the perpetrator with 9/11 and they are suppressed by it. So yes, it is bloody well discrimination if you suppress Muslims because of 9/11 - just like it would be discrimination if you were to suppress Christians over the actions of the WBC. Or the actions of Shintoists over Pearl Harbor. Or the actions of Catholics in Zimbabwe. How on Earth is this not a clear point?

Suppressing billions of people because of the actions of a group of a hundred or so is downright mental. Period.

Obviously not everyone agrees

Really? Do me a favour then, and find me a person who would be fine with the idea of their son's funeral being protested and their son being labelled a murderer. Society as a whole does pretty much agree that it is unacceptable. Even Fred Phelps wouldn't like that. That's why I have no problem with making it illegal. It helps no one and hurts everyone.

Why are you so concerned about the fallen soldiers families grief, but not the 9/11 families that complained? Are the 9/11 families stupid for their feelings? Is that it? Or do you see why it gets messy to legislate emotional well-being yet? I do hoope you will at least greace this part with one final comment.

Because the some of the 9/11 families blaming and attempting to suppress 1.57 billion over the actions of one militant political group composed of a few thousand people are acting completely irrationally. Would you agree with Japan blaming all Christian Americans over Hiroshima and attempting to legally suppressing them? Answer me. Would you? It is, "exactly the same thing" as some 9/11 families are trying to do.

On the other hand, the soldiers family isn't trying to blame all Christians for the actions of WBC. Nor are they making judgement about a billion people. They are simply attempting to seek compensation directly against the people who did it. Something the USA has already done (and then some) against Al Qaeda. You know, Al Qaeda? The group of people who actually bloody did it.

I love the way you completely ignored every single point I made about why the 9/11 "mosque" protesters are acting irrationally. Nice.

I will definetely agree with you that my government is totally fucked, but I'm guessing it's for different reasons.

If this is supposed to be some subtle crack at me being a Muslim, and therefore I think your government is "fucked" because I hate them - you are sadly mistaken. One of my brothers is currently serving near the Pakistani border with a US flag on his arm - fighting the group of people who were behind 9/11. So don't try to make some little attack on me suggesting I am anti-American. We are done here.

 

[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

No. It would be ensuring equality because their views are spreading inequality.
It's just like the judicial system which rules that to keep everyone safe, some people need to be removed from society. To keep society equal, some people should not be allowed to express their views.
Ultimately the idea of equality is completely flawed as people aren't equal. As long as there is capitalism and education, some people will always be 'better'/more valuable than others. If democracy and the concept of equality are the same in 50 years as they are today I will be both amazed and disappointed in people.

No matter what, someone had to lose in this case, and no matter who lost, someone was getting screwed. In this case, it's basic human compassion and morality. If the opposite had happened, people would be up in arms about how it's anyone's right to speak as they wish. I understand your ideas, but I can't fully agree.

 

[kaieth]

Good job Supreme court. Cut and dry, 1'st amendment trumps all

 

[newfoundsky]

The way I figure it is they can think and say what they want. They will just have to accept the consequences.

 

[Cliff_m85]

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 love the Westboro Baptist Church. Absolutely love them. They show us what is right with America. That the nuttiest people in our country are just religious fundamentalists that SAY STUFF is amazing. It shows that if you allow free speech, the nuts will obviously be labeled as nuts but not go as far as to, say, wear explosive devices and blow themselves up at funerals.

And let's not call them "radical". We all know what it means when someone says that. "I disagree with their interpretation because it looks EVIL". Guys, it's LITERALISM. They're not making up anything, they're taking direct passages from the Bible. Sure we can toss around apologetics and pretend that the book is a love-filled yarn, but there is an immense darkside to the book. Atleast the WBC accepts the book as a whole.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

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.

...thus earning 10000 respect points
I wish I could outlaw such a thing, but that would require violating the bill of rights. And in the long run, being allowed to speak your mind without being sent to prison is better than not having the odd funeral protested by religious nuts. On the other hand, the Law doesn't protect them from OUR opinions, either.

 

[Cliff_m85]

My friends, my US government teacher and I have been following this story for months. My friend handed me an article describing dissenting Justice Alito's position today.

The majority opinion (written by Justice Roberts) alleges that the First Amendment protects the church due to the idea that the protest is public and addresses broad issues, not specific events. Alito alleges that the protest's purpose was not to disagree with a broad issue but was specifically meant to launch a personal attack on Snyder (the grieving father).

Read this. It details Alito's argument and provides a nice bit at the end about Schwarzenegger v. EMA.

This case is foreshadowing of Schwarzenegger v. EMA people! If the Justices sided with Westboro in their case, surely they will side with us gamers in that case too (since the case also revolves around free speech and expression).



I see Voltaire quotes being thrown around quite a bit. I don't think Voltaire meant that spewing hatred that is obviously targeted at specific people was okay. I think he meant the phrase to pertain to governments versus the people.

Bullshit. Alito would have a point if this was the first and only funeral that the WBC protested. It isn't. THey're obviously protesting against a broad issue. Homosexuality and the military. Sure they're full of shit about their nutty belief, but they aren't attacking an individual....they're attacking a group.

 

[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 love the Westboro Baptist Church. Absolutely love them. They show us what is right with America. That the nuttiest people in our country are just religious fundamentalists that SAY STUFF is amazing. It shows that if you allow free speech, the nuts will obviously be labeled as nuts but not go as far as to, say, wear explosive devices and blow themselves up at funerals.

And let's not call them "radical". We all know what it means when someone says that. "I disagree with their interpretation because it looks EVIL". Guys, it's LITERALISM. They're not making up anything, they're taking direct passages from the Bible. Sure we can toss around apologetics and pretend that the book is a love-filled yarn, but there is an immense darkside to the book. Atleast the WBC accepts the book as a whole.

The Bible, although not my literature of choice, is long. It says a lot of things. WBC only chooses the passages that apply to what they believe. I'm sure there's a dozen passages that dispute their beliefs, too. And there are better ways to express a love of free speech, I think.

 

[Klopy]

I didn't look at the link, so maybe the following statement is invalid.

Isn't a funeral a private event? Protesting within a private area is illegal if they are asked to leave. Unless graveyards are public(I thought someone owned them), I don't think they should be able to do that. Leave the dead be, they can't stand up for themselves, so let them rest.

 

[Cliff_m85]

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 love the Westboro Baptist Church. Absolutely love them. They show us what is right with America. That the nuttiest people in our country are just religious fundamentalists that SAY STUFF is amazing. It shows that if you allow free speech, the nuts will obviously be labeled as nuts but not go as far as to, say, wear explosive devices and blow themselves up at funerals.

And let's not call them "radical". We all know what it means when someone says that. "I disagree with their interpretation because it looks EVIL". Guys, it's LITERALISM. They're not making up anything, they're taking direct passages from the Bible. Sure we can toss around apologetics and pretend that the book is a love-filled yarn, but there is an immense darkside to the book. Atleast the WBC accepts the book as a whole.

The Bible, although not my literature of choice, is long. It says a lot of things. WBC only chooses the passages that apply to what they believe. I'm sure there's a dozen passages that dispute their beliefs, too. And there are better ways to express a love of free speech, I think.

There's not one Christian that accepts the whole text. But, so far as I've seen, they accept the most out of any other sect. Which is worthy of respect in some fashion. If you're going to have faith, go balls out.

 

[Callate]

I felt this was rather inevitable, unfortunately. It's still speech, even if it's crazy and hateful speech. On the plus side, it's likely to be predictive of the SC's ruling on the California video game law.

...It better be. If they decide the First Amendment protects WBC and not us, I'm going to freaking secede.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I didn't look at the link, so maybe the following statement is invalid.

Isn't a funeral a private event? Protesting within a private area is illegal if they are asked to leave. Unless graveyards are public(I thought someone owned them), I don't think they should be able to do that. Leave the dead be, they can't stand up for themselves, so let them rest.

Yes, it is. The area outside the graveyard isn't though.

Secondly, the dead don't mind. I got quite annoyed that Michael Jackson jokes flowed all the time when he was alive and then some odd sort of 'respect' was put into place after he bit the big one. I'd rather you make fun of me when I'm dead, so as to not have my feelings hurt.

 

[Quazimofo]

Methinks Disturbing the peace should include picketing funerals.
People are grieving, and it's not like the dead are going to un-die for you.

everything i wouldve said has been said, (slightly paraphrased) "you are a dick for saying what you say, but ill be damned if i dont let you say it/ ignoring them is the best way to make them go away/ someone will kill them someday etc."

im just curious as to how one protests a funeral? i cant think of a way you could really.

 

[TiefBlau]

I'd congratulate the Supreme Court, but doing this much is more or less obligatory. For a court case like this one, even 8-1 is disconcerting.

For those less than well-versed in constitutional law, it's rather simple: You don't make an exception for free speech just because people say something that piss you off. We're not even in wartime, and these aren't even fighting words.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

The WBC is known for toeing the line but never fully breaking the law. Although people like the WBC use "freedom of speech" to espouse hate and intolerance, the laws of the land let them have their point of view. Freedom of speech protects those voices that most people hate.

A lot of people in the thread have state how they want to counter-protest or celebrate the death of anyone in the WBC but this is the wrong approach.

If people really want to silence the WBC then write to your local news station that you find that material offensive and without value and you won't watch their program because of it. Organizations like the WBC thrive with the media attention they gather by their stunts. If enough people voice their opinion that they don't want to hear ANYTHING about the WBC then their influence will fade.

Look at PETA. There are hundreds of animal rescue agencies around the world but everyone knows about PETA because of their outlandish actions. If you truly want to stop hearing about these people then stop feeding the trolls.

 

[Sutter Cane]

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.

Ya know these people's views may be vile and hateful, but who are we to say that they don't have a right to say it. Totally agree with the supreme court on this one. It's especially important to protect unpopular speech IMHO.

 

[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

No. It would be ensuring equality because their views are spreading inequality.
It's just like the judicial system which rules that to keep everyone safe, some people need to be removed from society. To keep society equal, some people should not be allowed to express their views.
Ultimately the idea of equality is completely flawed as people aren't equal. As long as there is capitalism and education, some people will always be 'better'/more valuable than others. If democracy and the concept of equality are the same in 50 years as they are today I will be both amazed and disappointed in people.

No matter what, someone had to lose in this case, and no matter who lost, someone was getting screwed. In this case, it's basic human compassion and morality. If the opposite had happened, people would be up in arms about how it's anyone's right to speak as they wish. I understand your ideas, but I can't fully agree.

The problem is the concept is a contradiction, like the judicial system.
To keep EVERYONE safe & living a crime free life, SOME people have to be removed from society, instantly meaning not EVERYONE is safe because SOME people have to be removed from society.

With equality you've 2 options:
1)NO LIMIT on what can be said in the name of EQUALITY, which ironically ALLOWS ideas of INEQUALITY to be spread, but saying EVERYONE'S IDEAS ARE OF EQUAL VALUE.
2)LIMIT what can be said, so INEQUALITY CANNOT be spread, but yet deeming SOME PEOPLES IDEAS OF LESS VALUE THAN OTHERS.

(Caps as they are potentially confusing points to help clarify the differences)

Freedom of speech and equality just don't mix. No matter which option you chose, you are contradicting the founding reason. Now if freedom of speech was available to say, citizens and not civilians, that would work, but I doubt that will be a reality any time soon.

That I can agree with. If equality could exist, communism would be more than just a theory. You've got to balance security with freedom. The government limits freedom, but provides security, and vice versa. In this case it's allowing free speech for everyone, even assholes, at the cost of many families' mental security.

And please don't treat me like I'm an idiot. I'm trying to be reasonable.