How free do you want your speech?

[Cail]

SCOTUS takes up funeral protests.

The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the father of a fallen Marine can collect damages from a religious sect that picketed his son's funeral with vulgar placards celebrating the death of American soldiers.

The court also accepted two other cases on Monday, one testing whether vaccine makers are immune from lawsuits under state law and another that challenges government background checks on federal contractors as an invasion of privacy. The cases are likely to be heard in the fall.

The funeral case, Snyder v. Phelps, tests the limits of First Amendment protection for demonstrators who aim obnoxious and hurtful speech at the most sympathetic of victims. It centers on the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., founded in 1955. Most of the church's 70-odd members are children, grandchildren or in-laws of its founder and sole pastor, Fred W. Phelps Sr., according to a lower court opinion.

The Westboro Church searches the Internet for notices of military funerals it can picket to get attention for its message of hostility to homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, and its claim that battlefield casualties represent divine retribution for what it views as America's sins.

In March 2006, Mr. Phelps and several of his relatives selected the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq, at St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster, Md.

The Westboro group, bearing such signs as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates You," along with more vulgar messages, complied with local ordinances. It wasn't until Cpl. Snyder's father, Albert Snyder, saw television coverage of the protest that he learned of it. Mr. Snyder later discovered a screed on the church's Web site attacking him for raising his son a Catholic and supporting his service in the armed forces.

Mr. Snyder sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and ultimately was awarded $5 million in damages. In September, however, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the judgment.

The Richmond, Va., court acknowledged that the Phelpses' speech was "highly offensive" and "repugnant." But it found that it was "intended to spark debate about issues" that concerned the Westboro group.

While government may adopt regulations to protect the sanctity of solemn occasions such as funerals, "some 'breathing space' for contentious speech is essential" under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, the appeals court held. The Supreme Court will consider how much breathing space the Constitution requires.

I loathe the Westboro Church. I loathe their message. I loathe their tactics. But they're in the right here. It'll be interesting to see how the court rules on this one, and what the division is.

[Zarathustra]

It is horrific what these people do, but freedom's a bitch sometimes. It's especially ironic that they are attacking soldiers and their families, when our soldiers are the very force which ensures their freedom to be such pricks.

I see nothing wrong with changing the ordinances so that events like a funeral have a certain amount of space where people can't disturb it. You have the right to free speech, but you don't necessarily have the right to do it anywhere, anytime.

Of course, that might be a slippery slope . . . I haven't really thought it through.

[sindatur]

Yes, people have the right to say ugly things.

THe article seems to say that the protest wasn't even noticed by the funeral goers, so, that is acceptable. However, if the protestors are close enough to disturb the proceedings, or if they are right at the entrance to the location, I think that steps over the line into "Yelling Fire in a crowded theater" territory.

[Cagliostro]

I just don't get why Phelps protests soldier's funerals. And I don't get a lot of the rest of what they do. I just checked Wikipedia to check if he has ties to law, and sure enough - he used to be a lawyer and was disbarred. Strangely, he fought a lot of pro-Civil Rights cases back in the day. He really is a mixed bag of fuckup from a lot of what I'm now seeing. It's just a damn shame he has to give a black eye to my home state.

As for free speech, it's obvious that he tries all the boundaries. I wish he'd have the good taste to not protest funerals, but, hell, like Z says, freedom comes with a price.

[Tjol]

There is some legal precedent for limiting speech based on the location the speech is made.... so they could say whatever they like, just not where they wanted to say it (such as on private property, you don't have the right for example to access some CEO's office and shout epithets at him while he tries to do business).

My opinion is though, that Phelps be allowed to speak, and that people be allowed to violently respond, not with weapons, but with fists, tasers, or tranquilisers as needed. I don't think provacateurs deserve any protection from the success of their provocations. If some arsehole was disturbing a funeral I was at, I'd make a sincere effort to incapacitate him from further disturbing of the funeral I think.

[Rawedge Rim]

SCOTUS takes up funeral protests.

The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the father of a fallen Marine can collect damages from a religious sect that picketed his son's funeral with vulgar placards celebrating the death of American soldiers.

The court also accepted two other cases on Monday, one testing whether vaccine makers are immune from lawsuits under state law and another that challenges government background checks on federal contractors as an invasion of privacy. The cases are likely to be heard in the fall.

The funeral case, Snyder v. Phelps, tests the limits of First Amendment protection for demonstrators who aim obnoxious and hurtful speech at the most sympathetic of victims. It centers on the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., founded in 1955. Most of the church's 70-odd members are children, grandchildren or in-laws of its founder and sole pastor, Fred W. Phelps Sr., according to a lower court opinion.

The Westboro Church searches the Internet for notices of military funerals it can picket to get attention for its message of hostility to homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, and its claim that battlefield casualties represent divine retribution for what it views as America's sins.

In March 2006, Mr. Phelps and several of his relatives selected the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq, at St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster, Md.

The Westboro group, bearing such signs as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates You," along with more vulgar messages, complied with local ordinances. It wasn't until Cpl. Snyder's father, Albert Snyder, saw television coverage of the protest that he learned of it. Mr. Snyder later discovered a screed on the church's Web site attacking him for raising his son a Catholic and supporting his service in the armed forces.

Mr. Snyder sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and ultimately was awarded $5 million in damages. In September, however, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the judgment.

The Richmond, Va., court acknowledged that the Phelpses' speech was "highly offensive" and "repugnant." But it found that it was "intended to spark debate about issues" that concerned the Westboro group.

While government may adopt regulations to protect the sanctity of solemn occasions such as funerals, "some 'breathing space' for contentious speech is essential" under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, the appeals court held. The Supreme Court will consider how much breathing space the Constitution requires.

I loathe the Westboro Church. I loathe their message. I loathe their tactics. But they're in the right here. It'll be interesting to see how the court rules on this one, and what the division is.

Gonna have to go with you on this one. The Westboro Church is filled with loon, obnoxious loons of which if they dissappeared today, I would not miss them for an instant. OTOH, as you stated, you must be very careful how you are going to limit free speech. I will say however that they need to be far enough away from a funeral so as not to disturb the soleminity of the occasion.

Course here in Fl. there are motorcycle gangs nearly dedicated to ensuring that the "church" stays away from veterans funerals, sorta warms the cockels of my heart.

[Cail]

The Patriot Riders. Yup, I've done one of those rides.

[Harbinger]

This is why we should devolve a little bit and be more lenient on the right to bitch slap someone. A good old fashioned beat down cures lots of undesirable behaviors.

[Avatar]

Yep, distasteful as it is, they can say and think whatever they like.

As for the other two cases, they strike me as ridiculous. Why should vaccine makers be immune from law suits? And how can they justify preventing background checks? I'd think they were pretty important. And anything that is a matter of public record can't be considered breach of privacy, can it?

I like my speech pretty free thanks.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Yea, the other 2 cases sound interesting too.

And like sin said, it seems those at the funeral didn't even know they were picketing, so where they were must not have been a problem.

Disagree w/Tjol, if that was serious about allowing a response. Slippery slope.

I wonder tho, who the hell awarded Snyder $5 million? $5 million for someone's emotional distress, who didn't know it was happening. Sounds like a great jury.

Westboro Baptist Church, what a joke. I pity those losers. And I'm not being facetious.

[Tjol]

Disagree w/Tjol, if that was serious about allowing a response. Slippery slope.

Only if the government is allowed to respond is the first ammendment endangered. The whole concept of 'fighting words' already started us down the slippery slope of whether or not words can be suggested to be violent in and of themselves.

I don't think tasers, tranquilisers or a punch in the mouth represents a mortal threat either, so I'm not entirely concerned about the slippery slope of people uncoiling on provacateurs who think they have safe haven to be arse's. Generally accepted social norms accept that when a person starts running their mouth and they get punched for it... that they earned what they got. That the law is written to see all violence as equally naughty is the law's failure, so yeah, I'm not afraid of that slippery slope.

[lucimay]

This is why we should devolve a little bit and be more lenient on the right to bitch slap someone. A good old fashioned beat down cures lots of undesirable behaviors.

'zactly!

[Damelon]

Perhaps it's time to bring back tar and feathering...

[The Dreaming]

Disagree w/Tjol, if that was serious about allowing a response. Slippery slope.

Only if the government is allowed to respond is the first ammendment endangered. The whole concept of 'fighting words' already started us down the slippery slope of whether or not words can be suggested to be violent in and of themselves.

I don't think tasers, tranquilisers or a punch in the mouth represents a mortal threat either, so I'm not entirely concerned about the slippery slope of people uncoiling on provacateurs who think they have safe haven to be arse's. Generally accepted social norms accept that when a person starts running their mouth and they get punched for it... that they earned what they got. That the law is written to see all violence as equally naughty is the law's failure, so yeah, I'm not afraid of that slippery slope.

I agree.

What it always seems to boil down to is the principle of proportionality. I think it's a hell of a good moral guide, but a frustratingly nebulous one to legislate. I think it takes good human judgment to determine whether proportionality is in effect. A good judge *would* look the other way if the family of one of these soldiers punched one of these picketers lights out.

Its just common sense that when you are intentionally provocative, you can get a reaction. Either way it goes, their cause gets more publicity, which is the real bitch of it all. This is disgustingly unchristian behavior, and I am frustrated that I, a well-adjusted sane young follower of Christ will be associated with people like this.

Ignorance and Arrogance make a disgusting combination, and religion seems to encourage people to mix the two. (Especially disgusting considering Christ's opinions on meekness and humility...)

[Orlion]

Only if the government is allowed to respond is the first ammendment endangered.

I think this is an important distinction. The Bill of Rights are viewed as "inalienable" rights of the people, but I think it is more of rights against the government. As a result, the Supreme Court making an actual general ruling regulating this would be unconstitutional. However, they may be able to do something to protect the rights of others. Consider: if a family's throwing a birthday party for a daughter at a park, should a group of folk be allowed to picket it and chant or show signs saying, "Jessie's a whore" ? If it's not allowed in the privacy of one's home, should it be allowed at a private function? What recourse do those being protested against have?

Tough issue...

[Cail]

I think we're back to the argument that the First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law....". Like it or not, you can say whatever you want, and it can't be illegal.

[Orlion]

I think we're back to the argument that the First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law....". Like it or not, you can say whatever you want, and it can't be illegal.

But it's illegal to say...

[Cail]

I can't see videos at work, so I'm sort of grasping in the dark here, but.....

Why? Why should it be illegal to say anything?

[Orlion]

I can't see videos at work, so I'm sort of grasping in the dark here, but.....

Why? Why should it be illegal to say anything?

If the premise for this video (which is a sketch comedy) is true, I imagine it would be so because it can be construed as conspiracy against the government.