Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

    Yahoo News Article


    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.

    The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

    Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.

    "Speech is powerful. 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," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

    Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

    Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where his funeral was to be held.

    The Rev. Fred Phelps and his family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

    They showed up with their usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

    The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

    Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

    Soon after, Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

    The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

    Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological terrorism."

    While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

    Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in other circumstances, governments would not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."

    But in this case, Breyer said, it would be wrong to "punish Westboro for seeking to communicate its views on matters of public concern."

    Margie Phelps, a daughter of the minister and a lawyer who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said she expected the outcome. "The only surprise is that Justice Alito did not feel compelled to follow his oath," Phelps said. "We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment."

    She also offered her church's view of the decision. "I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but here's the core point: The wrath of God is pouring onto this land. Rather than trying to shut us up, use your platforms to tell this nation to mourn for your sins."
    QuestionableContent-Awesome Webcomic

  • #2
    This is such bullshit!
    QuestionableContent-Awesome Webcomic

    Comment


    • #3
      Wish those fn assholes would just go away.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jewrrick View Post
        This is such bullshit!
        Technically, no it isn't. They have their rights.



        I still wish someone would just put a bullet in one of their heads at a protest. That will shut their asses up.

        Comment


        • #5
          What they do is irritating and pisses me off, but I agree with the judges.

          Comment


          • #6
            the 1st amendment isnt to protect speech you like, but the speech you dont like.

            god bless.
            It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men -Frederick Douglass

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by David View Post
              What they do is irritating and pisses me off, but I agree with the judges.
              Same, free speech is a two way street.

              Now is what they are doing decent? No.
              Originally posted by MR EDD
              U defend him who use's racial slurs like hes drinking water.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by David View Post
                What they do is irritating and pisses me off, but I agree with the judges.
                Same here. I'm glad I live in a country where people are allowed these rights. IMO, civil action is the only way to decrease their audience, sue them to bankruptcy for mental and emotional anguish.

                Comment


                • #9
                  This ruling just makes it clear that if verbal assaults are allowed, then physical assaults against their verbal assaults should also be completely legal. Time to go kick some ass.
                  How do we forget ourselves? How do we forget our minds?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Not suprising really. And I actually favor the decision because the government shouldn't decide what is acceptable speech in any way.

                    However that doesn't stop society from deciding what it is going to tolerate.

                    The Westboro fuckheads will get their justice at the end of a rifle. I figured that is the way it would go all along anyway. The constitution shields them from legal remedies but it isn't going to stop someone that they piss off who decides they are going to pay and he has nothing to lose.

                    It is going to be funny to see it all unfold. I hope none of their misguided kids, the cops or innocent bystanders are hurt when it finally goes down. But sadly they probably will be.
                    Last edited by Broncojohnny; 03-02-2011, 11:44 AM.
                    Originally posted by racrguy
                    What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
                    Originally posted by racrguy
                    Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Freedom of speech crosses a line when you cause distress in another human being.
                      QuestionableContent-Awesome Webcomic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jewrrick View Post
                        Freedom of speech crosses a line when you cause distress in another human being.
                        That is about as vague as you can get. If I tell a bum to fuck off does that not cause distress?
                        Originally posted by racrguy
                        What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
                        Originally posted by racrguy
                        Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          They died for their right to protest. It's sad and pathetic but it's still their right. Hell, protest against their protest.

                          You have to give the dirtbags in America the same rights as the other good Americans.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Broncojohnny View Post
                            That is about as vague as you can get. If I tell a bum to fuck off does that not cause distress?
                            Just your presence causes distress.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jewrrick View Post
                              Freedom of speech crosses a line when you cause distress in another human being.
                              That could be looked at as anything one person says to another.

                              That being said, that posted distressed me. See you in Court!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X