Court’s ruling in funeral protest case restates 1st amendmen

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110302/pl_yblog_exclusive/courts-ruling-in-funeral-protest-case-restates-first-amendment-principles

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to back the right of a small Kansas church to protest outside military funerals is shocking—and not surprising at all.

The shocking part stems from what many Americans no doubt see as the sheer ugliness of the protests of Pastor Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. This is a group that has protested homosexuality in American society, particularly in the military, by carrying such signs as "God hates the U.S.A./Thank God for 9/11" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

The church's strategy is to stage protests at high visibility funerals, drawing media attention and gaining a platform for their views. The family of slain Marine Matthew Snyder sued church members for intentionally inflicting emotional distress after they picketed at his funeral. As appalling as most Americans would find these protests, the Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision found that the picketers could not be successfully sued because the protests were protected by the First Amendment.

As it turns out, this wasn't a stretch at all for the Supreme Court. Although Chief Justice John Roberts describes it as a "narrow decision," the Supreme Court merely applied longstanding principles from earlier cases, rendering a verdict that breaks no new ground and merely restates what has been said a number of times.

"As a nation we have chosen…to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," Roberts wrote.

Here were the key factors in the court's decision in the Westboro case:

The protests were on public property and concerned public issues: The church members stood on public land a thousand feet from the church where the funeral was held. As hateful as the signs were, they addressed such topics as homosexuality in society, military policy and alleged misconduct by the Catholic Church. All of those subjects are matters for public debate.

The protest was peaceful: While government can't punish free speech, it does have the power to limit disruptive actions. The picketers never stepped on the church property or engaged in violence. Instead, they sang hymns and read from the Bible.

The protesters followed the rules: Governments cannot limit what we say, but they can control where we say it. Regulations can be put in place to control the "time, place and manner" of protests as long as all points of view are treated equally. This gives states the right to say how closely protesters can come to a military funeral, and a majority of states have passed legislation to do just that. In this case, the picketers notified authorities in advance and followed all police instructions.

Many Americans will be outraged about the Supreme Court's decision, but many also will see it as a reaffirmation by the court that all Americans have a right to express their views, popular or otherwise, about matters of public interest. An overriding commitment to freedom of speech—even deeply offensive speech—is at the heart of the court's decision, and of the First Amendment.

this makes me sad. and angry.

I have a feeling that some sad and angry person is going to visit the WBC and do energetic things to the church. Perhaps while people are still inside. It is possible.

ruveyn

I am glad the Supreme Court protected their speech, as our nation has chosen that route. However, WBC is still responsible for the consequences of that speech.

Anyone ever argue that the picketers are are making it that the government cannot "ensure domestic tranquility" (Preamble) or that what they're doing is slander (to the dead soldiers)?

Last edited by Peko on 03 Mar 2011, 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

If aggrieved parties cannot find redress in law they will find redress outside of law. I am happy the constitution is still intact and I hope that private parties will take the necessary steps to teach better manner so the WBC folk. A very energetic act might convey that message more than a favorable court decision.

ruveyn

I could care less about the WBC. I'm just glad the supreme court ruled the way they did because hate speech legislation is one very slippery slope.

This.

This was a true test of the Supreme Court in protecting speech for everyone. If they ruled against the WBC, it would've been a slap in the face of liberty and one dangerous, slippery slope.

I'm glad the judges didn't decide to rewrite the laws. Now, of course, we find a good, nonviolent way to deal w/ the bastards in the WBC. I see them as being similar to forum trolls, the less attention you give these ridiculous people, the better.

Actually, the picketers are kept a distance away from the funerals they protest. The local laws keep the WBC out of earshot of the people they torment or attempt to torment. I wonder if the people that the WBC bother have ever considered a very energetic act of reprisal?

ruveyn

What about slander?

In this case, it would be libel, since WBC posted on their website some very disparaging things about the Snyder family.

It's kind of part of their plan to goad others into attacking them. Not only are they fanatics, they're a family of lawyers and are well versed in suing over 1st amendment infringements and unlawful assault.
The devil would be hard pressed to find better trolls than the Phelps family.