Ursa Majoris Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is getting involved in the legal fight over the anti-gay protesters who show up at military funerals with inflammatory messages like "Thank God for dead soldiers." The court agreed Monday to consider whether the protesters' message, no matter how provocative and upsetting, is protected by the First Amendment. Members of a Kansas-based church have picketed military funerals to spread their belief that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. The justices will hear an appeal from the father of a Marine killed in Iraq to reinstate a $5 million verdict against the protesters, after they picketed outside his son's funeral in Maryland. A jury in Baltimore awarded Albert Snyder damages for emotional distress and invasion of privacy, but a federal appeals court threw out the verdict. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the signs contained "imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric" protected by the First Amendment. The funeral for Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Md., was among many that have been picketed by members of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Westboro pastor Fred Phelps and other members have used the funeral protests to spread their belief that U.S. deaths in the Iraq war are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. One of the signs at Snyder's funeral combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto with a slur against gay men. Other signs carred by members of the Topeka, Kan.-based church said, "America is Doomed," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "Priests Rape Boys" and "Thank God for IEDs," a reference to the roadside bombs that have killed many U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The case will be argued in the fall. Linky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 No, this isn't a violation on free speech. Free Speech in the sense of the US Constitutions is within reasonable limits. If the speech provokes intentional negative actions (e.g. hate crime related, intentionally provoking violent actions) then it is not protected by the US Constitution. For example: The KKK and other 'hate' groups are allowed to have rallies if they follow all legal guidelines for securing the space. However, if it begins to provoke violence, they shut down the rally to protect both sides, effectively ending the 'free speech' since it crossed the boundary. Whereas, putting a sign in your front yard with the word n*gger, sp*ck, ch*nk, or h*nky is not protected. First Amendment - Religion and ExpressionCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In the case of the Phelps, they go out of their way to say the most hateful things to grieving families during what is a personal and, in many cases, a private time for families. They do not back down when the families of our fallen soldiers (who are, in a sense, fighting for the Phelp's rights to free speech) approach them to stop, and ramp up the hate speech to provoke an attack where the Phelps in turn sue. That is not exercising your freedom of speech, that is simply being a crazy jackass. If the Phelps would follow all local laws for a permit to protest and then kept it reasonable (e.g. not intentionally provoking anger and violence) then all we could do is call them jackasses. They don't. In fact, Big John, who is the huddler that lives in the same area as the Phelp's church? I remember someone talking about them back in the day. In this instance, the states have limit authority to directly stop the Phelps from what they are doing since they travels all over the US. This situation must be handled by the federal courts. Depending on the outcome of this whole skid mark, we may see a landmark case - whichever way it goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 For the signs that I've seen pictures of, I would say yes it's free speech. Free speech doesn't mean that it's tasteful or respectful speech, or that you agree with the speech. It only means that they have a right to express themselves. One of the common signs I've seen is "God hates fags". While they probably haven't spoken with god directly and probably didn't hear God straight even if they did, it's not directly inciting violence against the gay community. Now if they said "Kill all fags" then that would be different. It's been several years since they've been around here I believe, but the Westboro yahoos came at least once to protest during a homosexual soldier funeral who died in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Patriot Guard had a surge of riders and non-riders assisting them to block out any sign of Westboro from the view of the procession. Westboro supporters tried to complain that their free speech rights were being violated, but the free speech sword cuts both ways. The Patriot guard had just as much right to be heard at that same time. Free speech guarantees the right for you to express your views. It doesn't guarantee that others have to listen, or that you actually have to be heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 In fact, Big John, who is the huddler that lives in the same area as the Phelp's church? I remember someone talking about them back in the day. Beaumont grew up in that area but lives elsewhere now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Beaumont grew up in that area but lives elsewhere now. If there is one constant in this universe, it's that Big John will know....oh and I have no idea when to use a comma, see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) Whereas, putting a sign in your front yard with the word n*gger, sp*ck, ch*nk, or h*nky is not protected. Actually, that is a horrible example and shame on me. If you put a sign in your yard, it's public display of obscenity and is not protected by the 1st amendment. If you were to sit on your front porch and yelled out those words, is a better example. Edited March 9, 2010 by cliaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 While disgusting and doing far more to hurt their religion that to preserve it, what these idiots say does not incite violence so I think it should be protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 9, 2010 Author Share Posted March 9, 2010 While disgusting and doing far more to hurt their religion that to preserve it, what these idiots say does not incite violence so I think it should be protected. I tend to think these people are the price we pay for free speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Actually, that is a horrible example and shame on me. If you put a sign in your yard, it's public display of obscenity and is not protected by the 1st amendment. If you were to sit on your front porch and yelled out those words, is a better example. So back in college, when my buddy taped pictures from Hustler all over the rear end of another buddy's car (knowing he wouldn't look at it as he drove to classes that day), is not protected? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 So back in college, when my buddy taped pictures from Hustler all over the rear end of another buddy's car (knowing he wouldn't look at it as he drove to classes that day), is not protected? Correct. That is a public display of pornography. And while the SC generally does not roll up pornography under the Obscenity category (google pornography and 1st Amen to see all of the legal cases) under the 1st Amendment, displaying it openly in a public setting is illegal, more so depending on what state/county/parish you live in. In this instance, the states are left as the majority legal precedence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 No, this isn't a violation on free speech. Free Speech in the sense of the US Constitutions is within reasonable limits.Pls do not try to apply common sense and rational thought. Our country tends to hate that nowdays. If the speech provokes intentional negative actions (e.g. hate crime related, intentionally provoking violent actions) then it is not protected by the US Constitution. ? You don't see how this could provoke negative actions?? Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't, and there's quite a diff between doing this at their own little rally vs doing it AT someone's funeral. Cripes. If you put a sign in your yard, it's public display of obscenity and is not protected by the 1st amendment. If you were to sit on your front porch and yelled out those words, is a better example. ?? How is something you put in your own (private) yard a "public display?" If the answer is because others in the neighborhood can see it, then how are these cemetery POSs justified? Most I've seen at least are far more "public" than a residence. Also how is printing a slur illegal but shouting one not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 As unfortunate as these people are, I don't see them as anything other than loudmouth attention whores. Thankfully the Freedom Riders do their best to protect the grieving families from their BS. I think cliaz laid out the grounds upon which a legal argument could be made to stop them but until that case is heard, I believe we have to let them have their say. Freedom of Speech does cut both ways and that means that some folks will be able to say things that I don't necessarily believe in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I tend to think these people are the price we pay for free speech. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I tend to think these people are the price we pay for free speech. As unfortunate as these people are, I don't see them as anything other than loudmouth attention whores. Thankfully the Freedom Riders do their best to protect the grieving families from their BS. I think cliaz laid out the grounds upon which a legal argument could be made to stop them but until that case is heard, I believe we have to let them have their say. Freedom of Speech does cut both ways and that means that some folks will be able to say things that I don't necessarily believe in. These. If anything, the first amendment protects political and unpopular speech. It's the price for living in a free society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Fred Phelps is the lowest form of scumbag. I hope that puke screws up one day and gets put in jail where he gets his ass worn out daily before dieing a long painful death and then going straight to hell where it will be extra hot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 No, this isn't a violation on free speech. Free Speech in the sense of the US Constitutions is within reasonable limits. If the speech provokes intentional negative actions (e.g. hate crime related, intentionally provoking violent actions) then it is not protected by the US Constitution. For example: The KKK and other 'hate' groups are allowed to have rallies if they follow all legal guidelines for securing the space. However, if it begins to provoke violence, they shut down the rally to protect both sides, effectively ending the 'free speech' since it crossed the boundary. Whereas, putting a sign in your front yard with the word n*gger, sp*ck, ch*nk, or h*nky is not protected. The case isn't about "fighting words." Its about whether a person can recover emotional distress damages in a civil lawsuit under an invasion of privacy theory or whether the First Amendment protects that speech and precludes such a cause of action. To my knowledge, no one in that case has argued that the protests amount to "fighting words." This would be a losing arguments from what I know as the "fighting words" doctrine is seldom used. It is meant to preclude face-to-face conduct that incites an immediate breach of the peace. The protests at issue are condcuted aware from the funeral and they avoid any personal references to/attacks on the deceased. And, as far as I am aware, the protests have not incited violence. If i had to guess, I'd say that the Supreme Court agrees with the Circuit Court and holds that the protests are protected by the First Amendment. And you are free to put a "I hate n@ggers" sign in your front yard. Go ahead and burn a cross in your front yard if you want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 While disgusting and doing far more to hurt their religion that to preserve it, what these idiots say does not incite violence so I think it should be protected. I have to say, my hope would be that their actions would incite violence against THEM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Supremem Court rules in favor of the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 While disgusting and doing far more to hurt their religion that to preserve it, what these idiots say does not incite violence so I think it should be protected. It makes me want to do violent things to the protesters and i'm not even a family member of one of the deceased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 IMO, this is the correct decision, however vile the plaintiffs. It is the price of free speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) No, this isn't a violation on free speech. Free Speech in the sense of the US Constitutions is within reasonable limits. If the speech provokes intentional negative actions (e.g. hate crime related, intentionally provoking violent actions) then it is not protected by the US Constitution. For example: The KKK and other 'hate' groups are allowed to have rallies if they follow all legal guidelines for securing the space. However, if it begins to provoke violence, they shut down the rally to protect both sides, effectively ending the 'free speech' since it crossed the boundary. Whereas, putting a sign in your front yard with the word n*gger, sp*ck, ch*nk, or h*nky is not protected. In the case of the Phelps, they go out of their way to say the most hateful things to grieving families during what is a personal and, in many cases, a private time for families. They do not back down when the families of our fallen soldiers (who are, in a sense, fighting for the Phelp's rights to free speech) approach them to stop, and ramp up the hate speech to provoke an attack where the Phelps in turn sue. That is not exercising your freedom of speech, that is simply being a crazy jackass. If the Phelps would follow all local laws for a permit to protest and then kept it reasonable (e.g. not intentionally provoking anger and violence) then all we could do is call them jackasses. They don't. In fact, Big John, who is the huddler that lives in the same area as the Phelp's church? I remember someone talking about them back in the day. In this instance, the states have limit authority to directly stop the Phelps from what they are doing since they travels all over the US. This situation must be handled by the federal courts. Depending on the outcome of this whole skid mark, we may see a landmark case - whichever way it goes. do you feel like the declaration of independence provoked violence? Edited March 2, 2011 by polksalet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 IMO, this is the correct decision, however vile the plaintiffs. It is the price of free speech. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Hope... I'd like to carry a sign across the street from them which says "guess where I planted the IEDs you're thanking God about" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Anybody got a shotgun I can borrow? Preferably with a box of shells? Cause I'd like to invoke my right to bare arms and start a party in the middle of them mother Ginsuers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 If that was my son's funeral that I was attending, it would be very upsetting. BUT, I wouldn't give those losers the attention that they don't deserve by doing anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.