Free Speech Is Not Always What We Want To Hear

[x635 4,066]

A very interesting editorial. The quotes below don't tell the whole story, so click on the link below to read more.

We are very pleased about a significant victory for the First Amendment this week in the U.S. Supreme Court. Forgive us, however, for not saying hail to the victor in this particular case.

In an 8-1 decision, the high court upheld free speech as a right that is so important and so central to American democracy that it must be afforded to the most noxious speech by the most obnoxious among us.

For 20 years, at nearly 600 military funerals, Phelps and his misguided followers have picketed to promote their belief that the deaths of service members are God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality. Such was Westboro's message — complete with signs saying "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates Fags" — in Westminster, Md., when Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died March 3, 2006, after a non-combat related vehicle accident, was laid to rest.

FULL EDITORIAL: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/a-proper-if-not-popular-decision-on-free-1298524.html

[Stepjam 118]

Phelps and the rest of the starry-eyed cretins that follow him only be encouraged into broader actions by this unfortunate ruling. I must say, however, that I have to agree with the court on a Constitutional basis. I'm certain that not one of the Justices supports the ruling in their heart in this particular context, but the law is the law. Such is our Democracy.

What I'm afraid of is that because of their incredible offensiveness and cruelty, Phelps and his followers will eventually bring violence and tragedy upon themselves. Such are the limits of human tolerance.

I can't say I would be "glad" to see an enraged, bereaved loved one commit an illegal act, but I don't think I could condemn it, either.

[M' Ave 1,466]

Phelps and the rest of the starry-eyed cretins that follow him only be encouraged into broader actions by this unfortunate ruling. I must say, however, that I have to agree with the court on a Constitutional basis. I'm certain that not one of the Justices supports the ruling in their heart in this particular context, but the law is the law. Such is our Democracy.

What I'm afraid of is that because of their incredible offensiveness and cruelty, Phelps and his followers will eventually bring violence and tragedy upon themselves. Such are the limits of human tolerance.

I can't say I would be "glad" to see an enraged, bereaved loved one commit an illegal act, but I don't think I could condemn it, either.

Well said.

Much as I'd like to see the courts slam the door on the Westboro Church, I agree with the notion that having a jury decide the limits of free speech is a very powerful concept, and a dangerous one.

Also noted in the decision of the court are the recent laws passed by 43 states, creating a buffer zone preventing these people from coming within a certain distance of funeral proceedings.

[FFPCogs 863]

I'll take a bite on this one.

I agree 100% with the courts decision. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and association, even when those associating and their speech is unpopular. Although this lunatic and his followers are a reprehensible, dispicable and ignorant bunch as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't mean they should be stifled. To silence these people would open the door to far more insidious censorship and curtailment on the liberties of all of us. If you think it can't happen here, think again. A look back into the history of just the 20th century amply shows us that. Everyone knows of Hitler (or should) but do they know that dictatorship in Germany didn't start the day Hitler and his Nazis were voted into power, it came about over time as laws were enacted that elimated personal freedoms "for the good of the Country" in the name of the "people". Silencing opposition is step number 1 in the dictator's handbook and it starts with the silencing of the unpopular. It is also the one we in this Country have the most power to prevent taking hold through our commitment to upholding the First Amendment...even when we disagree with messages spewed in the name of hate.

Freedoms are precious...all freedoms...but maybe none more so than our freedom to speak and associate, because without them you will never have the rest.

Cogs

Edited March 5, 2011 by FFPCogs

[v85 212]

I wonder if it is lost on the Westboro "Church", that the people whose funerals they are protesting are the reason why this country has a Supreme Court to decide these issues.

Like the poem goes "It is the soldier, who died for the flag, who gives the protestors the right to burn the flag."

[Stepjam 118]

I heartily support the right of an individual to burn our flag, especially if they wrap themselves in it beforehand.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

I certainly understand why SCOTUS made the decision it did, but the question I have to wonder is this; Does Westboro's right to protest trump these families' rights to express their religion peacefully? After all, that IS what these funerals are, a religious service. I wonder why the argument wasn't made that WBC is infringing upon the freedom to practice religion without persecution?

The fortunate thing is that organizations like the VFW, American Legion, and Patriot Guard Riders will continue to exercise THEIR right to counter-protest.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I heartily support the right of an individual to burn our flag, especially if they wrap themselves in it beforehand.

Does freedom of speech cover arson?

Granted there are ways to burn a flag that is not Arson (by definition).

[abaduck 123]

I agree 100% with the SC. But maybe there's a way around this. These toerags like to picket funerals, so... maybe the municipalities could consider leasing the relevant areas - streets, sidewalks etc. - to the family, for the day, for a peppercorn rent. Suddenly it's not a public place anymore, you don't have the same 1st amendment rights, and trespassers can be ejected with as much force as is necessary, and prosecuted to boot...

Just thinking out loud...

Mike

[INIT915 1,119]

If anyone takes the time to read the entire decision, they will note that this was an extremely narrow ruling. That means, the ruling dealt less with the principal in general then it did with the specific case brought by the appellants. The SCOTUS could have issued a wider reaching decision, but interestingly, they did not.

Edited March 5, 2011 by INIT915

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

If anyone takes the time to read the entire decision, they will note that this was an extremely narrow ruling. That means, the ruling dealt less with the principal in general then it did with the specific case brought by the appellants. The SCOTUS could have issued a wider reaching decision, but interestingly, they did not.

Any other point to note, is they, being SCOTUS, chose to take and consider this case. The Supreme Court gets to decide which cases it takes on, and which ones it does not. Simply by taking the case the supreme court gave the Westboro Baptist Church another soap box to spew hate from. I think the ruling in this case was a given from the get go, I do not think anyone, including myself would have even for one minute ignoring or rejecting this groups right to free speech. Had the supreme court not taken this case, the ruling would have been the same since they were essentially upholding and reaffirming lower appellate courts ruling but would not have given the "church" the satisfaction of winning a SCOTUS ruling. While my opinion of the Roberts Court is somewhat less than stellar to say the least, I think the worst decision they made in this case was not actually their ruling but even considering to hear the case in the first place.

Edited March 5, 2011 by bvfdjc316

[xfirefighter484x 234]

Sadly, this world needs jerkoffs like Phelps and those from the Westboro Baptist Church, because how else would we otherwise be able to distinguish the heroes, and "good guys".

It is a necessary evil in our world, and, as Stepjam said:

... because of their incredible offensiveness and cruelty, Phelps and his followers will eventually bring violence and tragedy upon themselves. Such are the limits of human tolerance.

I can't say I would be "glad" to see an enraged, bereaved loved one commit an illegal act, but I don't think I could condemn it, either.

I cannot say in my right mind that I would condone such actions against these arrogant, ignorant people, despite knowing that it sometimes takes drastic action to get people's attention, and my heart says they need a taste of their own medicine. Maybe not justice in a legal sense, but poetic justice...

[IzzyEng4 427]

Does freedom of speech cover arson?

Granted there are ways to burn a flag that is not Arson (by definition).

Well, they could probably get them for hate crimes, which is not covered by the 1st Amendment!

[xfirefighter484x 234]

Does freedom of speech cover arson?

Granted there are ways to burn a flag that is not Arson (by definition).

Sadly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States

The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

So Cited:

US v. Eichman

Texas v. Johnson

[JBE 328]

I dunno, Joe. I don't think they could be charged with a hate crime. They haven't taken a violent turn with anyone. Just standing there with signs and protesting I don't think qualifies.

Phelps' daughter is an attorney, so she knows her way around the law. I applaud the Supreme Court for taking a controversial subject and making a tough decision. As reprehensible as Phelps(note I wouldn't consider this guy a Reverend) and his followers beliefs are, the SCOTUS made the right call on this one. A number of my gay and lesbian friends were screaming about this the other day. I wanted to say to them, "Look, it may not be the decision you wanted, but it was the right decision." I would also say the same thing to any of my military friends, current or retired. It sickens me as a veteran that these people have nothing better to do than protest at funerals of men and women who were just doing their jobs. They are protected by the Constitution and this is an example that it works.

I'd actually like to sit down and read the dissenting justices opinion.

Westboro, IMHO, is a cult, plain and simple, that hides behind religion and the First Amendment to make its views public. One could say the same about white supremacist groups, black power groups, and folks of their ilk. they use the First Amendment as a shield. You may not like what they say, but they have the right to say it.

I took an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Do groups such as this infuriate me?? Of course. Would I like to see them disappear?? Yup. Will I defend their right to say what they want?? You bet I will. I do feel, free speech should be tempered with common sense, but the letter of the law says otherwise.

I'm actually suprised nobody has tried to destroy the church, or throw these people a beating.

[abaduck 123]

Phelps' daughter is an attorney, so she knows her way around the law...

Westboro, IMHO, is a cult, plain and simple, that hides behind religion and the First Amendment to make its views public.

Ding. They're not (IMHO) a church, or a cult; they're a business. They've made a good bit of money from suing people who interfere with their free speech, or subject them to unwarranted arrest etc.

It's no coincidence that she's a lawyer; that's part of their business plan...

Mike

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Ding. They're not (IMHO) a church, or a cult; they're a business. They've made a good bit of money from suing people who interfere with their free speech, or subject them to unwarranted arrest etc.

It's no coincidence that she's a lawyer; that's part of their business plan...

Mike

Its not just her, almost every adult in the entire extended family is a lawyer. They have openly said that anyone you attacks them or their speech will face a very very difficult time dealing with their law suits.

A beating takes a day, a lawsuit takes years.

Edited March 6, 2011 by bvfdjc316

[Just a guy 493]

Even I will admit that the Supreme Court made the right decision in this case. I would have loved to see the rights of the westboro church trampled on but shutting them down would be a slippery slope on the 1st amendment and against everything this country stand for. With that being said, take a look at the NYS Penal Law section I poted below. Going to a funeral in a church is excersing religous freedom so by these people protesting and yelling and holding up these horrendous signs right near a church or cemetary where a graveside prayer service is being held so I would think that if westboro came to New York to protest there is a good chance that they would violate this section of the penal law. Look at sections C and D

§ 240.70 Criminal interference with health care services or religious

worship in the second degree.

1. A person is guilty of criminal interference with health services or

religious worship in the second degree when:

(a) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, he or she

intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to

injure, intimidate or interfere with, another person because such other

person was or is obtaining or providing reproductive health services; or

B by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, he or she

intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to

injure, intimidate or interfere with, another person in order to

discourage such other person or any other person or persons from

obtaining or providing reproductive health services; or

© by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, he or she

intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to

injure, intimidate or interfere with, another person because such person

was or is seeking to exercise the right of religious freedom at a place

of religious worship; or

(d) he or she intentionally damages the property of a health care

facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides

reproductive health services, or intentionally damages the property of a

place of religious worship.

Edited March 6, 2011 by crime cop

[helicopper 1,050]

"Speech is powerful," Roberts wrote. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.

So true. A good decision by the court despite the offensive nature of the protected expression.

On the plus side, the protesters were held to 1000 feet from the funeral and the plaintiff testified that he only saw the tops of the signs and not their content.

[ny10570 745]

They're very good about not actually interfering or causing damage. They stick to public access areas and always follow to the letter any of the funeral protection ordinances applying to their protests. If you get the chance, listen to the daughter debate. While crazy she is very intelligent and they know exactly What they're doing. If want a chuckle Google Kevin Smith's WBBC comicon counter protest. A comedic twist on their lunacy.

[ex-commish 490]

This "church" which was founded by a mail order minister is nothing more than a racist hate group. I read the history on them and they seem to attack just about everyone. While I understand the court's stance on freedom speech it seems when rulings on acts such as this group of village idiots seem to be victorious but other issues such as praying in school, xmas trees on public displays and other religious or American traditions seems to get shot down.

I hope the members of this fake church sleep good at night knowing that the very same people who they are protesting died protecting thier right to protest thier funerals. Look at other countries such as Libya where protestors are getting shot on site. Maybe they should go there and set up camp. Who are they to Judge?

[gamewell45 258]

I'm actually suprised nobody has tried to destroy the church, or throw these people a beating.

Most likely because no one feels like getting arrested over these morons.

[Guest Grumpy grizzly]

I wonder if it is lost on the Westboro "Church", that the people whose funerals they are protesting are the reason why this country has a Supreme Court to decide these issues.

Like the poem goes "It is the soldier, who died for the flag, who gives the protestors the right to burn the flag."

It is also the soldier who gives the government a check in the amount of up to and including my life.

[ny10570 745]

This "church" which was founded by a mail order minister is nothing more than a racist hate group. I read the history on them and they seem to attack just about everyone. While I understand the court's stance on freedom speech it seems when rulings on acts such as this group of village idiots seem to be victorious but other issues such as praying in school, xmas trees on public displays and other religious or American traditions seems to get shot down.

I hope the members of this fake church sleep good at night knowing that the very same people who they are protesting died protecting thier right to protest thier funerals. Look at other countries such as Libya where protestors are getting shot on site. Maybe they should go there and set up camp. Who are they to Judge?

This isn't a freedom of religion case. They could be a Westborough Baptist Church or Westborough Jackasses. Their 1st amendment right is protected. Prayer or religious displays go down with the separation of church and state.