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

[Flig]

Free speech is free speech, unfortunately you can't pick and choose with this kind of thing. Yeah the WBC are pricks of the highest caliber, but you're only helping them out by giving them publicity. At least those charming little biker gangs are helping out.

 

[Volkov]

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.

 

[Kortney]

my apologies i jump to the male assumption a lot due to the high concentration of males on this site ^^

It's fine! I do it too sometimes, ha.

Ugh? The hell did I do to disgust you so? Disagree? On a discussion forum? My bad.

No, you came in with "ARE YOU SERIOUS?", belittled my opinion, put words in my mouth and did the classic move of claiming someone "doesn't understand" just because they think differently to you. None of it was needed.

Do you not see the disconnect between:

No, I don't think free speech is only alright if I think it is okay.

And

I just think protesting a funeral should be made illegal.

Really? Ugh.

I believe there should be restrictions (very few) on where people can protest. Most countries have these restrictions in place. Two places where you should not be allowed to protest include patient treatment areas in Hospitals and funerals. You aren't realising that I am not restricting what they are saying. They are more then welcome to protest and call soldiers murderers down the street. They just shouldn't be able to do it at a funeral because it is incredibly heartless to rub salt into the wounds of people who are grieving and have just lost their friend/son/husband/brother.

Watch this: It is not the government's job to keep you from being offended.

Of course it isn't. I never said it was. If these protests were happening in the main street of my town I would be offended, but I wouldn't call for them to be silenced. However, there is a difference between being offended and being traumatised and having your heart broken. They can protest somewhere else, not at a funeral. And before you come in with "But feelings are entirely subjective". Yes, they are, but everyone would feel heartbroken if this happened to their loved one's funeral. Everyone wouldn't be offended if they were saying this outside a shop. People then can walk away, yell at them, or just ignore them. It's pretty hard to do either of those things at your son's funeral.

It is also not the government's job to set up specific zones where free speech is ok and zones where it's not.

Why not? Because you say so? People said this about healthcare. People said this about shelter. You aren't the governing voice on what government should be for. The role of the government changes often and it is because of concern from the people they represent.

We don't need thought police because the mean people make you sad. That's not what government should be for.

And here you go again. This is an example of my "why do people seem to always do this on the Escapist" in the earlier post. "Mean people make me sad"? Right. Nice, mate.

It's not thought police. When did I ever suggest there should be limitations on what people should think or say? I never did. I'm saying there should be limitations on where they should be allowed to say it. Only an extremely small handful of limitations that is. Two or three. Literally.

 

[rainman2203]

Just got out of a law class arguing this and other 1st Amendment cases. Can't resist arguing...

Is it just me, or does America just have no backbone sometimes? This stuff wouldn't fly in most other countries.

Actually, this goes to prove that 8 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices have a pair that clank. I can guarantee that not a single one of the justices agreed with what WBC is doing (reading the opinion confirms that) but they performed their duties and didn't warp the 1st Amendment to quash one misguided group of people. Ruling against WBC would have put the court on a slippery slope to a very narrow reading of the 1st Amendment which would have reduced the speech rights of ALL Americans. Also, the U.S. is pretty liberal when it comes to a lot of speech (obviously given the ruling). Its pretty brave to accept (admittedly terrible) points of view rather than to outright stifle them like many other countries do.

I'm sure you Americans have "breach of the peace" or "harassment". I would say going to a funeral to yell and scream at the family constitutes that.

We do have both, and I'm sure both have been charged multiple times. The fact of the matter is that the WBC has never committed any physical harassment (even in self-defense) and is always within certified free-speech zones. Disturbing the peace is bit more hazy, since WBC's mere presence warrants a full biker gang and often hilarious counter-protests. Again, the WBC has done a surprisingly good job skirting the line in the sand of legality.

Don't get me wrong- these the entire WBC could die in a fire and I would be cheering along with everyone. These guys are the scum of the earth and soldiers deserve a huge level of our respect, BUT the Court's ruling is exactly as it should be. That said, some sweet, sweet street justice would be oh so wonderful.

 

[Kortney]

Make it illegal to protest a funeral.

Cause making a law like that will not be open to abuse. We have seen how people have twisted the law for child porn when it's protections were removed, like the guy who made the singing to kids video, for example.

That doesn't make child pornography laws that protect children any less valued. Does it? Just because some idiot can twist a law to find a loop hole doesn't mean the law itself is unjust.

How long before anyone who says something negative no matter how minor at a funeral, gets arrested under your lovely new law. Something as simple as a minor arguement on funeral day. This is what you open by blurring the line on this. As we have seen before, give procecutors an inch, they will take a mile.

You should notice that I used the word "protest". I do believe that people are free to use negative words at a funeral. At my father's funeral, for example, a few people did say some negative things about him. However where the line should be drawn is demonstrating, or protesting. Of course a definition of protesting would have to be clarified for the law.

But none of this is really new friend. Lots and lots of countries have a law against protesting at a funeral and it has worked fine. Perhaps the USA could look into that?

I cannot belive new laws are needed to deal with these people. Use the ones that are already there. All the SCOTUS have said it that you cannot stop them using the tools the police have tried so far.

What is wrong with the law adapting new laws to deal with people? I don't see anything wrong with it. It's happened with piracy and human rights laws before.

I always hate it when the police come across something new and instead of trying to workout how to deal with it using the tools they alreay, instead come bleating tat they need new laws.

I understand, but what tools do the police currently have to stop funeral protesting? None in the grand scheme of things, as far as I'm aware. If you wanted to stop it, you'd need legislation banning protesting within a certain vicinity of a funeral. And yes, the people may just park their cars three blocks away and scream it towards them - but that is a huge improvement over literally screaming it right in their ear and disturbing the funeral.

 

[Tdc2182]

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.

 

[Soods]

At times like this, I think freedom of speech wasn't such a great idea after all.

... damn hippies

 

[Tdc2182]

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?

 

[CRAVE CASE 55]

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.

They died defending their country. They do deserve a bit more respect. and how are they going to potest the funeral of someone defending the rights they are exersizing. Does not compute

 

[manaman]

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.

A dead soldier deserves no more respect than a dead anybody else, really.

You go off and fight and die for something you believe in and you will get more respect out of me then if you died walking down the street. Sorry buddy but they do deserve more respect.

 

[bob-2000]

I'm a lesbian, so this is really hard for me to say, but what they're doing is protected speech. Remember: if we take away their rights, then our rights will be the next to go.

 

[godfist88]

could it be possible to have these people arrested on obscenity charges, because as far as i'm concerned, their hate speech crap fills all the requirement.

1: it obtains to the purist interests (of hate)
2: it's offensive (to everyone)
3: and it has absolutely no political scientific, literary, or social value.

badda bing, there history.

edit: i can't believe i actually suggested this. the only thing obscenity laws are good for are screwing over comedians.

 

[Kryzantine]

Yeah, the SC really could not afford to rule against the WBC. Unpopular speech is meant to be protected by the 1st amendment, and it's why we have the free speech clause in the 1st amendment.

The ultimate thing to note is that this particular protest was not visible or audible from the actual funeral (the father only noticed the tops of signs and didn't learn what the protest was about until he turned on the news later). And legislative attempts against the WBC will be futile, for one very good reason.

How do you define a funeral?

could it be possible to have these people arrested on obscenity charges, because as far as i'm concerned, their hate speech crap fills all the requirement.

1: it obtains to the purist interests (of hate)
2: it's offensive (to everyone)
3: and it has absolutely no political scientific, literary, or social value.

badda bing, there history.

The WBC does good by calling themselves a church in this matter. Their protests do carry some social value. Also, the 2nd requirement in the Miller test specifically says the content must be expressed in a patently offensive way (which it was not to the viewers).

EDIT - Had the WBC stood next to the funeral and protested... well, they would have been arrested for trespassing, but if they were in an open area off grounds that was clearly visible to the funeral? Perhaps that would be considered obscene.

 

[ImprovizoR]

This is what's wrong with American judicial system. It became so backwards that your lawyers and judges don't even take intentions into consideration. They don't consider any other factors beside written words of law. And do you know how backwards that is? Well, about 6,000 years backwards. Think about ancient tribal people who didn't know or care about the difference between manslaughter, self-defense and murder.
Those guys should be punished because you can only practice your rights as long as you don't break other peoples rights in the process. In this case they do! It's harassment and psychological torture. Probably more but I'm not very familiar with American law.
I don't care about soldiers either. I think they're a bunch of stupid brainwashed patriots. But this only hurts the families of dead soldiers. And you can't justify that.
If you want to protest, protest in front of military bases if you have the balls. No use of protesting when dead people can't hear you, and you look like douche-bags in front of alive people.

 

[Tdc2182]

It doesn't need a positive outcome. It needs to not cause negative ones. So it can be neutral or positive.

Says who? Why do you need the government to protect your feelings?

And its just under the specific practise of respecting the dead. Surely that last half hour of somebodies "existence" or whatever you wish to call it is worthy of some common decency.

I think so, but that's still an opinion-not an objective truth to be enforced by law.

And i have no prolbem with letting the government step in if it stops things that we should on a fundamental level not want to do anyway?

Thank you for imposing your morals on me. Your feelings are not guaranteed by the constitution.

Seriously, people like you need to be swiped under the carpet of the universe by an untrustworthy French housemaid.

Saying something is "bad" is not imposing morals on anyone. Saying that something like, oh, I don't know, protesting the death of a 9 year old child who was killed in a shooting is a bad thing is not imposing morals on someone.

Grief is not just a feeling. It is much more than that. And the least it could do is be respected by making a law to keep protests an hour before and after funerals.

Yet again, by your logic you should be able to yell fire in a movie theater and not expect any repercussions.

I think people have evolved enough to realize "Hey, maybe we might have to say the whole desecrating people's hour of memorial time for the loved is universally... bad" without idiots like you jumping up and screaming out for their freedoms of speech.

Don't worry, you're still gonna be able to cuss out the government for that tax raise or what not.

 

[Leg End]

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.

And that is why those bikers get my undying respect. ;~;

OT: Agree with The Supreme Court, protected. A dick move of epic proportions... but protected. :/

Though, I hate the fuck out of the WBC.

Though, we have the 1st Amendment too.

Hence, I can basically throw the same shit at them for protesting that young girl's funeral.

Also, I can preach religious beliefs of my own that are infinitely crazier without any hate whatsoever.

Love to all.

 

[Volkov]

They died defending their country. They do deserve a bit more respect. and how are they going to protest the funeral of someone defending the rights they are exercising. Does not compute

You go off and fight and die for something you believe in and you will get more respect out of me then if you died walking down the street. Sorry buddy but they do deserve more respect.

Plz see:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.268360.10277952