Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Westboro Baptist Church Idiocy

I'm torn about this.

As much of a supporter of free speech I am, I feel for Matthew Snyder's family, and wish the WBC would cease to exist and their children all taken away by CSS. The SCOTUS made the right ruling, but it still pisses me off that these wastes of oxygen can continue to cause such bullshit against grieving families with little hope of being held accountable for their idiocy.

An interesting world we live in, kids.

Yeah, damn my liberal values endorsing free speech.

That being said, I believe the children should be removed from this toxic environment. I know of kids who've been taken by CAS for far less. If their parents claimed to be Neo-Nazi's there would have been an intervention by now.

I‪’m not even remotely torn about this issue. Free speech is not absolute. We all know the popular saying that one can not yell fire in a crowded theater. It is unlawful to burn a cross in order to terrorize people. It is unlawful to give out classified information.

These are abridgments to free speech.

A person’s funeral is not the courthouse stairs, or a store, or a place where one is free to do many things--with reasonable restrictions. The dangerous atmosphere it creates, as well as the enormous and undue toll it takes on the members of these undeserving family members is greater than the need to protect this form of speech and expression.

I’m waiting, with great trepidation, for the moment when the nation is shocked by one of the WBC members is shot because some aggrieved soldiers loved one is pushed to the breaking-point.

I couldn't possibly disagree with you more, wildswan, which is pretty rare.

If I understand the law correctly speech which causes harm is not prohibited, speech that is implicitly designed to cause harm through the deployment of falsehoods, is. I don't think any of us want to invest time and energy debating any member of the Phelps flock as to whether or not God exists, in the form that they seem to believe a higher power does, and the feelings of that deity regarding people's sexuality. The Supreme Court obviously does not.

A person's funeral is not a courthouse, but a public street fifty or a hundred feet away from a person's funeral doesn't become a person's funeral by mere proximity. Society doesn't rearrange itself to accommodate the grief of some. Frankly, I think the answer is a greater show of-- for want of a better term-- love and understanding in the face of bigotry and hatred. Movements such as Angel Action are ultimately a far better (and more empowering) solution to me than the State limiting others' speech on my-- or anyone's-- behalf.

As much as I hate to, I agree with this ruling. The WBC had a fundamental right to express their free speech as long as they do so on public grounds in a peaceful manner. Likewise, it is wholly constitutional to organize a counter protest, which has, historically, yielded some awesome results. Also protected is telling the WBC to go fuck themselves, which they should absolutely do.

Roberts and Alito disagreed? I think hell will be freezing over shortly.

free speech would not be hindered if there was a ruling banning protest within site of a funeral ceremony or procession. they want to say they like cake, or that god hates fags, they have the legal right to do so, but i see no reason why it must be allowed at a funeral. i loved seeing that one community brought back the 'angels' from mathew sheppard's funeral to nullify the 'protest'. as a side note, most municipalities require a permit for public display (my city even requires a license to hold a yard sale), i wonder how many cities have simply refused to issue a permit, or have broken up their 'protest' if westboro didn't get one? this is within a local gov't rights to refuse to issue if they feel the event would require a police presence that it may be a hardship to provide.

They're protesting on public property and are, from what I can gather, following any local ordinances. Most of the time, they aren't even protesting in the cemetery but on the sidewalks outside. Because of that, there is no legal reason they can barred from utilizing the public space.

that is why i used the phrasing 'within sight' of the funeral or procession. why must the 'protest' be allowed within proximity of the funeral gathering? because, as you pointed out, the public property may very well be steps away from the venue's door. what are the federal rulings on inciting riot? besides free speech, we also have the right to protest. but, is this protest? there is no political view being expressed, so how loose is the definition of 'protest'? i see many loopholes for municipalities to block westboro, despite this ruling.

They're not inciting riot, though. They're practicing "peaceful" assembly (it doesn't necessarily have to be an assembly of protesters) and free speech. From what I understand, if a riot were to ensue, the rioters would be held responsible, and not the WBC (regardless of if they're considered provocateurs). And, as the ruling states, assembly doesn't require a political affiliation per se, but the focus of the assembly may be "matters of public concern", topical, or related to current or relevant events. I'm sure municipalities could find ways to block WBC, but in doing so they run the risk of infringing WBC's now Supreme-Court-affirmed constitutional rights.

It could be argued that, even though they're a distance apart from the funeral and on public property, that they're violating the families' right to mourn in peace and privacy. I think Alito argued something similar.

^ i think it can be argued, in the event that one of their protests does result in a violent confrontation, that displaying signs and chanting derogatory slurs constitutes inciting. threatening, even.

Bingo.

Like me and dislike what they do with their constitutional right? Join or support the Riders who use their rights to help the families as best they can.

There are legitimate lawyers and people who are better versed in case law than I am here on the boards, but some cases that come to mind are National Socialist Party of America v The Village of Skokie and Brandenburg v Ohio. The first allows for the assembly of unsavory groups and for them to brandish hateful rhetoric or symbols, while Brandenburg v Ohio prevents (in some cases) the government prohibition of calls to violence or the use of force. Like I said, though, those rulings may not apply in this case or could have been overridden by more recent decisions; I'm not an expert.

I think, more importantly, it's a question of "clear and present danger". Are the WBC's statements and espoused beliefs controversial and disparaging? Sure. But the expression of their views does not endanger anyone or pose a threat to anyone's wellbeing. Likewise, do the statements count as slander? Or hate speech? Most likely, but to this point I don't think the WBC has been brought to court on those counts. It has only been argued that their assembly can be considered harassment or a violation of privacy.

The assholes (my pet name for the WBC) was 1000 feet from the funeral.

Cross burnings are not illegal on private property and I would guess with a permit in public. (I could see the KKK being forced to light their cross with Christmas lights due to a fire permit not being issued for safety reasons. )l

It is not unlawful to "unlawful to give out classified information" if you are the media. It is unlawful to disclose classified information that you have been given access to as part of your government work. (You agreed to limit your free speech rights to obtain a security clearance and possible for your job i.e. positions withing the CIA.)

Alito's position was stupid and weak.

Sarah Palin speaks out.

I'd normally respond with *headdesk*, but instead I'm changing it to "Yup. Sounds about right from her".

It's pretty obvious that Sarah Palin has never actually read, or is incapable of understanding, the First Amendment.

In other news, water is wet.

Like I said, I disagree with the false proposition that freedom of speech is an absolute and unabridged. It hasn’t anything to do with whether or not I agree with their speech--I agree that the KKK has the right to march down a public thorough-way and vent as much hate as they want.

What I don’t think should be permissible is the harassment and menacing. Does everyone agree that any and all abridgments be struck-down by SCOTUS‪?‬ Is it possible to be so entirely dogmatic about the notion that any and all speech is lawful and permissible no matter what the costs‪?‬

And, no, it is not strictly lawful for anyone to release classified information; and in the case of the media, legal constraints rarely end in criminal prosecution, as well it should be, and for very firm reasons that protect the press. I agree with the press’ wide liberties and feel that they are essential in preserving our republic.

Standing within the route of a funeral and condemning specific persons to hell and harassing loved ones by holding signs saying that they are glad that [insert name and military position] is dead is an incitement to my view.

That is my objection: harassing, threatening, and menacing.

I agree. There's no reason harassment should be tolerated just because someone is calling it a protest. The WBC is free to protest whatever they want, but the sort of stuff they're doing is blatant harassment.

As a side note, it is unlawful for anyone to give out classified information. A very good friend of mine was arrested for handing out information which had been ruled by the courts as protected. She was protesting the ruling, since the court had deemed information about previous rape convictions 'irrelevant' in a rape case, and ended up with fines and jail time. Granted, this was in New Zealand, but I would imagine laws are similar in other countries.

All speech is not protected.

See‪?‬

Other signs included

The cartoon


The father at his closest "passed within 200 to 300 feet of the picket site. Although Snyder testified that he could see the tops of the picket signs as he drove to the funeral, he did not see what was written on the signs until later that night, while watching a news broadcast covering the event. (pg 3)"

The Maryland law passed to protect funerals has a 100 foot barrier(pg 11). "The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity, or violence. (pg 11)"

Bias Intimidation is only a crime when combined with other crimes in this example it was arson . Being racist asses isn't a crime