Court to rule in military funeral protest case

[IraGlacialis]

Court to rule in military funeral protest case

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 homo******ity.
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 homo******ity. 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.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests;_ylt=AngVO6Xld3sLgLJ14Dkr0fhbbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTNtYWpwdGpuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzA4L3VzX3N1cHJlbWVfY291cnRfZnVuZXJhbF9wcm90ZXN0cwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzQEcG9zAzQEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawN0aGFua2dvZGZvcmQ-

[KEEPER0311]

Sickening that people have the nerve to do this at any ones funeral, let alone some one who fought and died for their right to be retarded.

[seraosha]

Freedom of speech is a bitch sometimes, but I'd rather these asshats and their protected speech than the alternative.

[Rayber]

Freedom of speech is a bitch sometimes, but I'd rather these asshats and their protected speech than the alternative.
True but it wouldnt hurt their rights to be given a order not to get too close to the funeral..

[seraosha]

True but it wouldnt hurt their rights to be given a order not to get too close to the funeral..

Yeah...but "free speech zones" are frequently used to marginalize dissent...but in the case of funerals, I see a full mile exclusion zone to be appropriate.
I hate those Westboro assholes

[khaz]

I remember reading several of the westboro members work for the Kansas Department of Corrections.

[LineDoggie]

No one should eb allowed to protest a funeral, be it for a Soldier or Civilian. Its highly intrusive and disrepectful to grieving families.

[Kaplanr]

So I'll take a stab at hypothesizing a position if I were a lawyer - which I'm not. By allowing Westboro Baptist complete and full rights to demonstrate at funerals, the government is in effect violating the "Establishment Clause" in the First Amendment. They are stating that Westboro's right to protest supersedes my right to a properly conducted and solemn funeral - in effect granting the Westboro Baptist Church a greater expression of religion and supporting (even if unintentionally) the suppression of my right of free exercise of religion, which is also guaranteed.

Does the argument follow a logical course?

[Noons86]

Its highly intrusive and disrepectful to grieving families.

That's the whole idea. They're trying to get a reaction so they can sue either the family or the town, for not providing adequate protection.

[FLYNAVY29]

Saw these moonbats protesting with the dayglow signs of God loves IEDs & dead soldiers @ the main gate of Walter Reed MC as a bus load of wounded soldiers were coming onto the MC. There needs to be a special place in hell for these people. Freedom of speech is fine but you have to draw the line when it infringes on someone elses freedom.

[wildcat]

These are they people that need to be visited in the dark and taught a lesson.

I agree there should be a no protest zone at least 1/4 mile away from cemeteries and funerals homes, but I do not think they should lose there right of free speech, just limit them from being close to the cemeteries.

[gaijinsamurai]

I just wish they'd let a bunch of veterans take care of the Westboro protestors "in their own way", if you know what I mean. I'd volunteer.

[LineDoggie]

Super soakers filled with a Mix of Nair and fermented Beer Urine & SKunk Scent

clear shot at phelps brood


Job done

[Kit]

I see it as a right to privacy more than anything. If lunatics start protesting in your front lawn, is their freedom of speech protected? When a family has a funeral, that ceremony is 100% theirs. No need for these Westboro attention whores.

[Chiptox]

So I'll take a stab at hypothesizing a position if I were a lawyer - which I'm not. By allowing Westboro Baptist complete and full rights to demonstrate at funerals, the government is in effect violating the "Establishment Clause" in the First Amendment. They are stating that Westboro's right to protest supersedes my right to a properly conducted and solemn funeral - in effect granting the Westboro Baptist Church a greater expression of religion and supporting (even if unintentionally) the suppression of my right of free exercise of religion, which is also guaranteed.

Does the argument follow a logical course?
A very logical one. The sticky bit is that it puts the government in the awkward position of having to decide who's free speech is paramount and deserves to be protected over the other. Since the government is constitutionally bound not to restrict or otherwise play favorites with speech (especially political speech), I don't think it is possible to make a workable solution out of it.

[Steelersfan413]

MP.net > Westboro Baptist

Who's with me?

[IraGlacialis]

I see it as a right to privacy more than anything. If lunatics start protesting in your front lawn, is their freedom of speech protected? When a family has a funeral, that ceremony is 100% theirs. No need for these Westboro attention whores.
Only issue is that there is no such thing as right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution (which is where debates over surveillance and abortion stem from), while freedom of speech/assembly is the pretty much first part of in the Bill of Rights. Considering that Phelps was a former civil rights attorney, this organization knows how to take advantage of the laws of the nation they so dearly despise; irony at its lowest.

Of course, there are limits to freedom of speech (slander, yelling "fire" in a crowd, etc), and that's what is to be decided. Likely, this will go nowhere because, as reprehensible as this group is, there is always the chance of a slippery slope forming.

[custodes]

I had a chance to tell them off once.The police eventually asked me to leave as I was making their job harder.Sorry guys.

They should be far away from funerals indeed.

[deagle]

those are messages of hate and ignorance, freedom of speech has its limits.

[ferguson]

Every one of those pricks is a lawyer-they are just waiting for an opportunity to ruin anybody who takes them on.

I sure hope the law figures a way to make them go away.

Chestbeating and blowing steam won't help.

[AZZenny]

If you could clearly prove that they are doing this as a way to try to provoke a violent response in order to get a payday, I'd think that somehow would have to edge towards extortion, or racketeering (like it would be if they actually demanded 'hush money'), or maybe even edges onto a hate crime, since they especially like to target the funerals of suspected Gay soldiers.

Hypothetically, let's say they decide to start loudly picketing and disrupting services of some specific religious denomination -- maybe they decide to start pissing off Catholic congregations, saying that their faith tells them to fight against the corrupt Papacy until its eliminated. It's basically pitting one religion's freedom to practice against another religion that says its God-given purpose is to eliminate the first one. That would be a nasty tangle.

What if they started harassing the families of Hispanic soldiers, or started haranguing against Muslim or Jewish or Blacks in the military rather than Gays?

I'm of very mixed mind on this -- I treasure freedom of speech pretty much above all else, and saying they can't be deliberately offensive on religious grounds starts to sniff of the UN and Europeonism and crazy outrage over Mohammed cartoons. On the other hand, the behavior is so deliberately provocative and so cruel that I'd like to see some sort of criminal (i.e., non-free-speech) way to nail them, and certainly put major restrictions on proximity.