Anti-Gay Funeral Picketers Triumph

[Maldev]

Thankfully, we have people that are still willing to roll with the Patriot Guard and be a wall between these idiots and the families of the USA's fallen heroes.

While I agree with the court's decision to protect free speech, I mourn the lack of common sense and decency these people have in chosing the time and placement of their protests.

 

 

 

Anti-gay funeral picketers triumph

By Mark Sherman, The Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a grieving father's pain over mocking protests at his Marine son's funeral must yield to First Amendment protections for free speech. All but one justice sided with a fundamentalist church that has stirred outrage with raucous demonstrations contending God is punishing the military for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

 

The 8-1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., was the latest in a line of court rulings that, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

 

The decision ended a lawsuit by Albert Snyder, who sued church members for the emotional pain they caused by showing up at his son Matthew's funeral. As they have at hundreds of other funerals, the Westboro members held signs with provocative messages, 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.

 

Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, said Snyder wanted only to "bury his son in peace." Instead, Alito said, the protesters "brutally attacked" Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. "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.

 

The ruling, though, was in line with many earlier court decisions that said the First Amendment exists to protect robust debate on public issues and free expression, no matter how distasteful. A year ago, the justices struck down a federal ban on videos that show graphic violence against animals. In 1988, the court unanimously overturned a verdict for the Rev. Jerry Falwell in his libel lawsuit against Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt over a raunchy parody ad.

What might have made this case different was that the Snyders are not celebrities or public officials but private citizens. Both Roberts and Alito agreed that the Snyders were the innocent victims of the long-running campaign by the church's pastor, the Rev. Fred Phelps, and his family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church. Roberts said there was no doubt the protesters added to Albert Snyder's "already incalculable grief."

 

But Roberts said the frequency of the protests - and the church's practice of demonstrating against Catholics, Jews and many other groups - is an indication that Phelps and his flock were not mounting a personal attack against Snyder but expressing deeply held views on public topics.

 

Indeed, Matthew Snyder was not gay. But "Westboro believes that God is killing American soldiers as punishment for the nation's sinful policies," Roberts said.

 

"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.

 

Snyder's reaction, at a news conference in York, Pa.: "My first thought was, eight justices don't have the common sense God gave a goat." He added, "We found out today we can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity."

 

He said it was possible he would have to pay the Phelpses around $100,000, which they are seeking in legal fees, since he lost the lawsuit. The money would, in effect, finance more of the same activity he fought against, Snyder said.

 

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."

 

Veterans groups reacted to the ruling with dismay. Veterans of Foreign Wars national commander Richard L. Eubank said, "The Westboro Baptist Church may think they have won, but the VFW will continue to support community efforts to ensure no one hears their voice, because the right to free speech does not trump a family's right to mourn in private."

 

The picketers obeyed police instructions and stood about 1,000 feet from the Catholic church in Westminster, Md., where the funeral took place in March of 2006.

 

The protesters 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 assailed 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. The Supreme Court agreed.

 

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups had 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 that 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."

[Vintage229]

Thankfully, we have people that are still willing to roll with the Patriot Guard and be a wall between these idiots and the families of the USA's fallen heroes.

While I agree with the court's decision to protect free speech, I mourn the lack of common sense and decency these people have in chosing the time and placement of their protests.

I just hope that I'm still around when a few of them protesters pass away and then hopefully a group of military families will picket at their funeral. That would be poetic justice.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Vintage229

[Clan Chief]

THey came to Beckley after the Upper Big Branch disaster--- -picketed at Wal Mart. Emotions were running high back then-- just about everyone in town knew someone who had been killed.

 

Couple good ole boys whipped their asses right in front of Wally World--- ( the police were too busy to come ) --- and they went home.

 

I'm just sayin----

 

Bob

 

 

[secinv]

This is a freedom of speech issue, we all should applaud the majority of justices with this one. I only wish the justices would vote this way on all of our constitutional freedoms like with the 2nd Amendment. This issue is a highly emotional one and most of us feel for the families of the deceased soldiers and sailors. I think the Church should direct their anger and emotion toward our politicians and not the families of citizens who decided to serve our country. I, too am upset over some policies our government is supporting, but service people are not part of the decision making.

 

The left has been relentless in their attack on our First Amendment rights, like their fairness doctrine that was defeated prior to the new congress taking over in January. The Freedom of speech must be defended at all costs!

[indian al]

This is a freedom of speech issue, we all should applaud the majority of justices with this one. I only wish the justices would vote this way on all of our constitutional freedoms like with the 2nd Amendment. This issue is a highly emotional one and most of us feel for the families of the deceased soldiers and sailors. I think the Church should direct their anger and emotion toward our politicians and not the families of citizens who decided to serve our country. I, too am upset over some policies our government is supporting, but service people are not part of the decision making.

 

The left has been relentless in their attack on our First Amendment rights, like their fairness doctrine that was defeated prior to the new congress taking over in January. The Freedom of speech must be defended at all costs!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This shouldnt be classed as freedom of speech this is more or less a form of terrorism in my opinion. These bastards will be surprised come judgment day if there is a god they will rot in hell.

 

 

 

 

Al

[indian T]

Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword. It's great when you agree with what's being said, and it sucks when you don't.

I'm glad we can voice our opinions freely (this entire sentence could be a topic of debate, but for the sake of my post, I'm going to go with it). Imagine if we couldn't.

However; I do agree with Maldev...common sense and decency should apply here, or you may get the reaction that Clan Chief posted...a good ol' fashioned ass-whoopin' (which you may have to endure when practicing your 1st amendment right in the wrong place).

[Brock]

This is a freedom of speech issue, we all should applaud the majority of justices with this one. I only wish the justices would vote this way on all of our constitutional freedoms like with the 2nd Amendment. This issue is a highly emotional one and most of us feel for the families of the deceased soldiers and sailors. I think the Church should direct their anger and emotion toward our politicians and not the families of citizens who decided to serve our country. I, too am upset over some policies our government is supporting, but service people are not part of the decision making.

 

The left has been relentless in their attack on our First Amendment rights, like their fairness doctrine that was defeated prior to the new congress taking over in January. The Freedom of speech must be defended at all costs!

 

that is a good thing....there is nothing that says one amendment is less important than the others...so their willingness to enforce 1st Amendment should automatically lead us to believe they would enforce 2nd Amendment as well. The problem is the anti-gun crowd dont think this way.

 

While they say the 2nd was written in a different time and we need to adjust and mold it to our new world social concerns and we are more civilized now so it is not needed as written.....but then they will staunchly defend Freedom of Speech without saying there are differences today from what persons were experiences 300 years ago... Such a double standard.

 

We can only hope the current bench will hold fast....

[Doc Loco]

Should all 'hate crimes and hate speech' now be legal as well???

 

No 'prior restraints'?

 

 

Westboro inbreds needed that ass wuppin' for sure with more of the same to come in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Clan Chief]

If you really want to get into Freedom of Speech issues----check out Wikileaks---

 

OR even locally---- check out your local TOPIX It appears every dumbass who has access to the internet can go online and spew lies and fabrications about their neighbors-- and no one can invervene-----

 

I am all for upholding the constituion-- even the messy parts--- but there needs to be some enforcement of common courtesy and public behavior standards--

[Injun Pete]

Well they don’t just picket Military Funerals….their going to be at (3) local Churches this Sunday morning picketing because they are saying these Churches allow Gays to attend....

[CatfishCalhoun]

What does it take to get a tax free "church" designation from the Feds? The threshold must be pretty low.

[uplander]

I think we ought to make a road trip to Topeka this year from Branson and all exercise our free speech rights and attend a few services at the Westport Baptist Church and see if they feel the same way then!

[CatfishCalhoun]

I think we ought to make a road trip to Topeka this year from Branson and all exercise our free speech rights and attend a few services at the Westport Baptist Church and see if they feel the same way then!

[Doc Loco]

I think we ought to make a road trip to Topeka this year from Branson and all exercise our free speech rights and attend a few services at the Westport Baptist Church and see if they feel the same way then!

 

 

 

The local sheriff may be in their pocket...tresspassing, unlawful gathering, hate crimes - sure they would find something...

 

They'd probably sue the IIRA and tie it all up in court for a very long time...

 

Just nuke 'em & call it a day!

[darkrider]

anti-gay picketers??? why would they not want people to be happy?

[CatfishCalhoun]

anti-gay picketers??? why would they not want people to be happy?

 

They're lawyers by trade. They only profit from discord.

[secinv]

If you really want to get into Freedom of Speech issues----check out Wikileaks---

 

OR even locally---- check out your local TOPIX It appears every dumbass who has access to the internet can go online and spew lies and fabrications about their neighbors-- and no one can invervene-----

 

I am all for upholding the constituion-- even the messy parts--- but there needs to be some enforcement of common courtesy and public behavior standards--

 

Bob and others, our founders declared "Freedom of Speech" to be the most important amendment to the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to be the second most important. I find (as our founders did) that any restriction on free speech to be wrong and unconstitutional. I do not agree with this Baptist Church, but support their free speech rights. I also feel that their should be no restrictions to the 2nd Amendment and feel that gun laws and regulations violate our rights. I am a Constitutionalist and support the US Constitution 100% and without fail. We do not want a slippery slope to be carried into free speech and yes, I think hate speech is a protected right. Attaching additional penalties to murder or assault with hate speech is wrong and may I add unconstitutional. Murder is already illegal and itself an act of hate, so the addition of hate speech is anti free speech and wrong.

 

I have worn the uniform of a serviceman of the US Army, served my country honorably and retired in the mid 90's as an E - 7 (Sergeant First Class / Platoon Sergeant), so I am close to what the issue is and empathetic. There are others like Micmac and Brock who probably feel the same for these deceased service members and their families.

 

The Supreme Court responded and decided properly on this Constitutionally protected right. They had and have the same right all Americans have to freely speak and without the government restricting that right. We may not agree on what was expressed, but each and every one of us should support their constitutionally protected right to say what they want. Remember, we as American have the same and can express our thoughts in language against this church or against a a concern within the US Government.

 

Support and Defend the US Constitution

[indian T]

I'd like to practice my freedom of speech right now and say; "Bob's new Chief looks fabulous"!

 

[indian al]

Bob and others, our founders declared "Freedom of Speech" to be the most important amendment to the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to be the second most important. I find (as our founders did) that any restriction on free speech to be wrong and unconstitutional. I do not agree with this Baptist Church, but support their free speech rights. I also feel that their should be no restrictions to the 2nd Amendment and feel that gun laws and regulations violate our rights. I am a Constitutionalist and support the US Constitution 100% and without fail. We do not want a slippery slope to be carried into free speech and yes, I think hate speech is a protected right. Attaching additional penalties to murder or assault with hate speech is wrong and may I add unconstitutional. Murder is already illegal and itself an act of hate, so the addition of hate speech is anti free speech and wrong.

 

I have worn the uniform of a serviceman of the US Army, served my country honorably and retired in the mid 90's as an E - 7 (Sergeant First Class / Platoon Sergeant), so I am close to what the issue is and empathetic. There are others like Micmac and Brock who probably feel the same for these deceased service members and their families.

 

The Supreme Court responded and decided properly on this Constitutionally protected right. They had and have the same right all Americans have to freely speak and without the government restricting that right. We may not agree on what was expressed, but each and every one of us should support their constitutionally protected right to say what they want. Remember, we as American have the same and can express our thoughts in language against this church or against a a concern within the US Government.

 

Support and Defend the US Constitution

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt very much that your founders meant for the freedom of speech crap that phelps and his cult are spewing. That kind of shit probably never crossed their minds when they wrote that up.

 

 

 

 

 

Al

[335]

fuckers like that turn my stomach!!!!

[Brock]

they have a special place in hell for them to picket and say whatever they want after they die.....I hope they get all the attention they desire when they arrive.

[TitanChief]

Well, I can't WAIT to yell "FIRE" in a movie theater now.

I support free speech, but not the taunting that they do at funerals.

That's not speech, that is inciting a riot and intimidation and just as bad as yelling fire in a theater.

[bikermonkey]

Registering with Patriot Guard now...if anyone wants to picket our soldiers here they are going to have to go through me.

[Blu]

Considering how long this hateful people have been picketing military funerals, I am truly surprised that some pissed-off Marine hasn't taken a sniper rifle to a nearby roof and put an end to a few of them. I'm just saying.

 

 

[PPScoutrider]

The "Marketplace of Ideas":

 

The "marketplace of ideas" is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The "marketplace of ideas" belief holds that the truth or the best policy arises out of the competition of widely various ideas in free, transparent public discourse, an important part of liberal democracy.

 

Richard Hofstadter and Walter Metzger (1955) have rightly pointed out, the concept has ancient and nineteenth century roots. The idea can be traced to Socrates and Aristotle. The Socratic Method is the pedagogical embodiment of the "Marketplace of Ideas."

 

The concept of the "marketplace of ideas" is often attributed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919). Interestingly, while Justice Holmes (1919) implied the idea in his dissenting opinion, he never used the term. Holmes (1919) stated:

 

“ Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.[3]