CNN.com: Supreme Court rules Westboro Baptist Church has right to protest at U.S. Military Funerals

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1.

I have just lost what little faith I had in any form of justice in our country. :mad:

Hmmm. What happens if they cause some old people to have heart attacks because of listening to them rant about the dead loved ones at such an already emotional and stressful time? Or if people at the funeral lose it and start shooting them or something?

Hmmm. What happens if they cause some old people to have heart attacks because of listening to them rant about the dead loved ones at such an already emotional and stressful time? Or if people at the funeral lose it and start shooting them or something?

A. Maybe you can get a great attorney who can prove proximate cause and win a civil law suit.

B. Those people go to jail.

There was really no other possible outcome for this suit. Everyone knew this going in.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1.

I have just lost what little faith I had in any form of justice in our country. :mad:

While I disagree with the intent of Westboro Baptist Church, I agree with the SCs decision. Free speech protects especially the speech that really offends. I despise Westboro Baptist Church, and disagree with the protests and their message 100%, to the point of feeling ill typing this. But they have a right to peacefully assemble and display their speech. As much as it sickens me to write this........

They have a right to speech, but it's the "at" bit I disagree with. Their intent is to disrupt and interfere. Why do they have that right?

EDIT: the case in point they were 1000 feet away, so I agree that this is not an issue.

it's the price of liberty, guys. either accept it or admit you'd rather be comfortable than free.

A. Maybe you can get a great attorney who can prove proximate cause and win a civil law suit.

B. Those people go to jail.

There was really no other possible outcome for this suit. Everyone knew this going in.

I think what has to be considered here is the type of situation, not just proximity.

If you harass and antagonize people already in a severely drained and dangerous mental and emotional state as many are at a funeral, there may be wildly disastrous and severe consequences. People should not have the right to protest against the dead at funerals, period.

There are plenty of other options available for free speech.

Harassing those who are in an extreme emotional state should not be one of them.

I shudder to think what would have happened if people had been protesting at my grandfather's funeral with the way my grandmother was already at that point.

They have a right to speech, but it's the "at" bit I disagree with. Their intent is to disrupt and interfere. Why do they have that right?

The question becomes drawing that line. Bill Clinton spoke at my college graduation. Just outside the college gates were abortion protestors. You could easily argue that they "interfered" since women were bursting into tears at they entered the event in a cap and gown. (A bloody fetus is not the image you want seared on your brain on the alleged happiest day of your life). People got into shouting matches. It was not fun.

But was that their "intent?" How do you define that? And isn't it their right to enrage you? Where does the Constitution create a right for you to be free of offensive behavior?

The Westboro people are very smart. They are all attorneys. They stand away from the event. They do not approach anyone. They do not "interfere" in any way. They keep their "phyisical" movements to a minimumn. At no point, does their exercise of speech became an "action." We can draw the line on speech to action. We've never figured out where to draw the line on good speech to bad speech.

Points to one and all about Free Speech. You have a point.(And a good one)

I just wonder how long it will be before we see groups protesting Westboro at a funeral and it gets uglier...or even violent. SMH.

There are plenty of other options available for free speech.

That's not your determination to make.

Harassing those who are in an extreme emotional state should not be one of them.

By this logic, we should not allow protestors outside abortion clinics or near the Vietnam Memorial or near any VFW or Foreign Legion Hall. We should not allow protestors outside corporate headquarters during labor negotiations when careers are on the line. We should not allow protests outside prisons during executions or courthouses during high-profile trials.

Any situation can be an "extreme emotional state."

What you are doing is allowing your feelings to dictate my right to speech.

Let's say you don't like the way the Redskins are being run. You organize a fan protest. On that day, Dan Snyder's mother has passed away and he has just been told that his cancer has relapsed. He walks outside the building, sees your protest, and punches you. It's just one thing too many on a bad day.

He is clearly in an extreme emotional state. Should you have called ahead to make sure he was in a good emotional state before protesting?

Despite how despicable they are, the decision is the right one.

When that old **** Phelps finally kicks the bucket, the protest outside his funeral is going to be AWESOME.

I agree w/ this decision

Legal opinion time:

Doesn't this just mean that the government can't stop these people?

Points to one and all about Free Speech. You have a point.(And a good one)

I just wonder how long it will be before we see groups protesting Westboro at a funeral and it gets uglier...or even violent. SMH.

Well that's when you prosecute people for their actions. If a fight broke out at every protest these people were involved in, you might be able to get the "Fire in a crowded theater" exemption to remove the WBC's right to free speech. But I wouldn't count on that, and it would set a bad precedent of "Well, I was upset and the protesters of some cause I disagree with them on were mean, so I was justified in beating them up and denying them their freedom, your Honor." The WBC members are scum, but so is NABLA and we allow them to exist so long as they obey the law. Objectionable opinions do not justify violent reaction.

Any situation can be an "extreme emotional state."

What you are doing is allowing your feelings to dictate my right to speech.

This is exactly why the Rule of Law is so much better than Rule by Mob. The law is impartial and (mostly) logical. People are emotional and prone to irrationality. I'd hate for my freedoms to depend on whether somebody's girlfriend broke up with them that morning.

Legal opinion time:

Doesn't this just mean that the government can't stop these people?

Yes. Though I am curious as what the alternative private, means to stopping them are.

I agree with the ruling, but I hope there's an especially warm place in hell for these idiots.

While I disagree with the intent of Westboro Baptist Church, I agree with the SCs decision. Free speech protects especially the speech that really offends. I despise Westboro Baptist Church, and disagree with the protests and their message 100%, to the point of feeling ill typing this. But they have a right to peacefully assemble and display their speech. As much as it sickens me to write this........

+1

Can't bring myself to disagree with the court, but it's making me feel sick to my stomach.

That's not your determination to make.

By this logic' date=' we should not allow protestors outside abortion clinics or near the Vietnam Memorial or near any VFW or Foreign Legion Hall. We should not allow protestors outside corporate headquarters during labor negotiations when careers are on the line. We should not allow protests outside prisons during executions or courthouses during high-profile trials.

Any situation can be an "extreme emotional state."

What you are doing is allowing your feelings to dictate my right to speech.

Let's say you don't like the way the Redskins are being run. You organize a fan protest. On that day, Dan Snyder's mother has passed away and he has just been told that his cancer has relapsed. He walks outside the building, sees your protest, and punches you. It's just one thing too many on a bad day.

He is clearly in an extreme emotional state. Should you have called ahead to make sure he was in a good emotional state before protesting?[/quote']

That's a ridiculous comparison unless I was aware of what had happened to Snyder and went to harass him anyway or specifically because of it.

This has nothing to do with my feeling, it has to do with logic.

If you allow protesters to harrass funeral members you are taking a very serious risk.

Especially because there are usually going to be old people at funerals who are not in a good state of mind and body at the moment.

I don't think there's very many comparisons that can come close to matching the situation at a funeral.

The only thing I can think of that approaches this really is allowing protesters in the hospital rooms of people who are dying.

So who's organizing the protest for Phelps's funeral?

That's a ridiculous comparison unless I was aware of what had happened to Snyder and went to harass him anyway or specifically because of it.

This has nothing to do with my feeling, it has to do with logic.

If you allow protesters to harrass funeral members you are taking a very serious risk.

Especially because there are usually going to be old people at funerals who are not in a good state of mind and body at the moment.

I don't think there's very many comparisons that can come close to matching the situation at a funeral.

The only thing I can think of that approaches this really is allowing protesters in the hospital rooms of people who are dying.

Good post!

The WBC people are going beyond protesting, they are harrassing. They are trying to hurt people's feelings in the most devastating way possible.

Harrassment should not be legal in this counrty - especially harrassing people grieving the loss of a loved one.

This has nothing to do with my feeling, it has to do with logic.

It is painfully evident that this has a lot to do with your feelings, no matter how hard you try to apply logic to support your point of view.

Yes. Though I am curious as what the alternative private' date=' means to stopping them are.[/quote']

As am I.

That's a ridiculous comparison unless I was aware of what had happened to Snyder and went to harass him anyway or specifically because of it.

This has nothing to do with my feeling, it has to do with logic.

If you allow protesters to harrass funeral members you are taking a very serious risk.

Especially because there are usually going to be old people at funerals who are not in a good state of mind and body at the moment.

I don't think there's very many comparisons that can come close to matching the situation at a funeral.

The only thing I can think of that approaches this really is allowing protesters in the hospital rooms of people who are dying.

You are discussing a matter of degree. Anyone can be emotional. For whatever reason, you've made funerals sacrosanct. Once you cross that line and say, "Here, there is a barrier" you are now on the good old slippery slope. Catholic churches are filled with old people. Should I be allowed to hold a "Death Penalty for Pedophile Priests" outside Our Lady of Perpetual Motion?"

This ruling is correct. Freedom of speech protects "unpopular speech" and this group of scum has the right to spout off their grossly unpopular speech.

Good post!

The WBC people are going beyond protesting, they are harrassing. They are trying to hurt people's feelings in the most devastating way possible.

Harrassment should not be legal in this counrty - especially harrassing people grieving the loss of a loved one.

Is it harrassment to protest an abortion clinic or a Catholic church or a - I dunno - corporate headquarters?