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

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Yeah I knew this was going to be the result. The SCOTUS prevented the slippery slope in other potential unrelated cases and it should have been 9-0.

I am very curious as to who dissented I can think of two.

You are probably wrong, because you are always wrong.

Alito dissented. I addressed his dissent a few pages back.

[TimmySmith]

It looks like you're the one bringing typical divisiveness to the table. The story doesn't identify the dissenting justice or the gist of the dissent (both of which are newsworthy and obvious inquiries) until halfway through the article, and they only quote Alito once, while quoting the majority opinion several times. Really don't get where you're coming from on this. It's just that you're mad about the use of the (accurate) descriptor "anti-gay" in the title?

Just read the CNN and AP versions of the same story.

Here is the AP, quoted from Huffington no less, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html

I don't need to know about gay or anti-gay in the title, it's a free speech issue. If it makes you happy, so be it.

[NavyDave]

You are probably wrong' date=' because you are always wrong.

Alito dissented. I addressed his dissent a few pages back.[/quote']

I thought it was going to be Thomas or Alito and I'm always wrong in your eyes.

However, son when we first posted images and stories about WBC years ago I was against them and their disgraceful behaviour.

[ACW]

I thought it was going to be Thomas or Alito and I'm always wrong in your eyes.

However, son when we first posted images and stories about WBC years ago I was against them and their disgraceful behaviour.

Probably only because theyw ere military funerals

[NavyDave]

You are discussing a matter of degree. Anyone can be emotional. For whatever reason' date=' 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?"[/quote']

It would be no different than when SkidRow's Sebastian Bach wore an AIDS kills ------ Dead T Shirt. protected speech thats Totally Classless

---------- Post added March-2nd-2011 at 01:18 PM ----------

Probably only because theyw ere military funerals

Actually that thread was about the anti war left wingers protesting and we were posting the parody pictures at their protest rally how radical islamist should have the right to park their wives next to their horse or mule or deliver 5 fingers to the face in public. Larry posted the pics of the WBC posters back then disparaging the military and wishing horrible death to gays and as I said back then while I think their lifestyle is deviant they are still human beings thus you disapprove of the sin and not hate the sinner.

But duh of course I'll stand up for my troops when necessary.

[Bliz]

Just read the CNN and AP versions of the same story.

Here is the AP, quoted from Huffington no less, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html

I don't need to know about gay or anti-gay in the title, it's a free speech issue. If it makes you happy, so be it.

I fail to see how the CNN story is significantly more divisive than the AP story.

You made a comment about "love the title" and CNN's being divisive. I assumed you were referring to their description in the title of Westboro as "anti-gay" since the rest of the title is benign. "Supreme Court rules for anti-gay church over military funeral protests" So if not than then what did you mean by that comment?

[Corcaigh]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Alito's argument makes sense to me.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Alito's argument makes sense to me.

Alito is drawing a distinction between the a public individual and a private individual when it comes to using the First Amendment as a defense to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In doing so, he fails to address how there could have been an intentional infliction of emotional distress on the father when the father was not even aware of the protests until afterwards. He further confuses the issue by addressing the defamation of the son. Precedent is clear - you cannot defame the dead.

It's a very confused opinion.

[Bliz]

Alito is drawing a distinction between the a public individual and a private individual when it comes to using the First Amendment as a defense to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In doing so' date=' he fails to address how there could have been an intentional infliction of emotional distress on the father when the father was not even aware of the protests until afterwards. He further confuses the issue by addressing the defamation of the son. Precedent is clear - you cannot defame the dead.

It's a very confused opinion.[/quote']

I went back and read the opinion. You can really tell Roberts hated to rule in favor of these guys. The more I think about it, the more I think it entirely plausible that they agreed, behind closed doors, that someone HAD to write a dissent and call WB out for what they are and the heinousness of what they do. It's something I could absolutely see Roberts doing.

If it's true, it only further elevates him as a great Chief Justice.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I went back and read the opinion. You can really tell Roberts hated to rule in favor of these guys. The more I think about it, the more I think it entirely plausible that they agreed, behind closed doors, that someone HAD to write a dissent and call WB out for what they are and the heinousness of what they do. It's something I could absolutely see Roberts doing.

If it's true, it only further elevates him as a great Chief Justice.

If Roberts thinks Westboro is worth a dissent that can be used as a template for how to tear down the First Amendment, he should be impeached.

I know that for some reason, there is a rule at ES that says a Westboro Baptist thread must always be on the first page of the Tailgate and they must be cited in every religion thread, but they are not worth the attention. And certainly not worth a dissent to what is essentially a universally-agreed upon Constitutional Standard.

[greenspandan]

I went back and read the opinion. You can really tell Roberts hated to rule in favor of these guys. The more I think about it, the more I think it entirely plausible that they agreed, behind closed doors, that someone HAD to write a dissent and call WB out for what they are and the heinousness of what they do. It's something I could absolutely see Roberts doing.

If it's true, it only further elevates him as a great Chief Justice.

how so? since when is it the court's job to point out who is a jerk and who isn't? they need to be interpreting the law, not judging peoples' character.

[visionary]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/03/us.westboro.father/index.html?hpt=C1

Fallen Marine's father says anti-gay pickets will draw gunfire

"Something is going to happen," Albert Snyder told CNN Thursday. "Somebody is going to get hurt."

"You have too many soldiers and Marines coming back with post-traumatic stress syndrome, and they (the Westboro protesters) are going to go to the wrong funeral and the guns are going to go off."

"And when it does," Snyder said. "I just hope it doesn't hit the mother that's burying her child or the little girl that's burying her father or mother. It's inevitable."

[The Sisko]

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.

The most shocking part of all of this is Alito's dissent. He may be more dangerous than I originally thought....

It's possible Alito is the most extreme justice in the court's history.

All of the above. As much as the WBC protesters make me want to vomit' date=' I also realize that it could just as easily be an issue that I agree with. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech, no matter how much we as individuals may loathe the opinions expressed.

The only thing that surprised me was that this wasn't a unanimous decision as IMHO it's quite cut and dried. I'm shocked that even a far right activist judge like Alito was able to find a way to dissent.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Alito's argument makes sense to me.

I respect you a lot and would be curious to hear your explanation.

With all that said, I'd absolutely love it if every business in their community (and elsewhere if possible) implemented a reverse boycott against them. Let's see how much time they have to protest funerals when they have to grow and prepare all their own food and drive for two hours to find a store that will take their money to buy a roll of toilet paper.

[Hiro]

As a staunch proponent of the freedom of expression, I begrudgingly agree that this was the correct ruling. The church did picket on public property, didn't physically "threaten" the service goers from what I know, and were protesting relatively "peacefully," despite the deep disgust I have for these religious zealots.

However, how you view Alito's dissent depends on your personal opinion on the idea of "fighting words." Are there truly instances where such language is so provoking and threatening that retaliation can be justified? While I can see it being the case in certain places, I personally am not a fan of the "fighting words" policy because 1) I prefer the idea of taking the highroad in any situation like that and 2) The line of what is and is not considered fighting words can get blurry REALLY fast.

I wouldn't call Alito's dissent radical like you have suggested, LKB. Is it a more liberal take on it? Yeah probably, because the fighting words policy is a more liberal-by-nature policy.

This ruling doesn't change the fact that these religious zealots are terribly, ignorant people who have a narrow and terrible view of the world. People should picket their services, on public property, to make them see what it feels like to have opinions voiced against you.

[CrabR]

no one likes what teh WBBC does

but the ruling is a correct, just like the ruling allowing Nazis to march in Skoie Illinois yea ago

we start picking a choosing what one can say puts on a slipper slop

what towns can do is require them to get a demonstration permit. it can be denied due to safety concerns. by the time they appeal it the funeral will be over

[Larry]

what towns can do is require them to get a demonstration permit. it can be denied due to safety concerns. by the time they appeal it the funeral will be over

I'd definitely have a problem with that.

Now, though, I do recall decades ago, my Dad explaining to me what the policy was in DC. (Which, obviously, sees a lot of protests.)

To get a permit, the group has to apply.

When they apply, the Chief of Police decides how much security the protest is going to need.

The permit costs however much the Chief says security will cost.

KKK wants to protest? That's going to cost.

KKK wants to protest one block away from the MLK birthday protest? That's going to cost more.

[Stadium-Armory]

I agree with the opinion that the WBBC has the right to be douchey. And for the same reason, these people have the right to do their bit:

http://www.godvine.com/Christian-Veterans-Protect-the-Funeral-of-a-Fallen-Soldier-278.html

[Dan T.]

How absolute is the freedom of speech? The Westboro people were 1000 feet from the funeral to practice their freedom of speech. Why not 500 feet? Why not right outside the door of the church? Why not inside the church during the service?

[Predicto]

How absolute is the freedom of speech? The Westboro people were 1000 feet from the funeral to practice their freedom of speech. Why not 500 feet? Why not right outside the door of the church? Why not inside the church during the service?

There are a lot of cases explaining the scope of permissible "time, place and manner" restrictions on free speech. They are all pretty fact-specific.

The courts do the best they can balancing a lot of competing interests. :whoknows:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'd definitely have a problem with that.

Now, though, I do recall decades ago, my Dad explaining to me what the policy was in DC. (Which, obviously, sees a lot of protests.)

To get a permit, the group has to apply.

When they apply, the Chief of Police decides how much security the protest is going to need.

The permit costs however much the Chief says security will cost.

KKK wants to protest? That's going to cost.

KKK wants to protest one block away from the MLK birthday protest? That's going to cost more.

Yea, that's all illegal. There are several court decisions on the illegality of charging for security costs. I'm too lazy to find them now.

---------- Post added March-4th-2011 at 03:08 PM ----------

How absolute is the freedom of speech? The Westboro people were 1000 feet from the funeral to practice their freedom of speech. Why not 500 feet? Why not right outside the door of the church? Why not inside the church during the service?

500 feet is probably ok.

Right outside the church door would probably not be. Reasonable place, time, and manner restrictions have been allowed. You don't want the KKK holding a rally on the Mall five feet away from a Nation of Islam rally. It all depends really. You probably would not want the WBC right outside the door. A "support our troops" rally would probably be less of a problem.

Inside the church is a stupid argument. Your right to free speech does not outweigh someone else's property rights. You can't come into my house and hold an anti-abortion rally.

[Dan T.]

So we're getting somewhere... Couldn't it be argued that the very nature of a funeral qualifies that venue for "reasonable place, time, and manner restrictions"? Any speech is liable to disrupt the uniquely contemplative nature of a funeral.

[Predicto]

So we're getting somewhere... Couldn't it be argued that the very nature of a funeral qualifies that venue for "reasonable place, time, and manner restrictions"? Any speech is liable to disrupt the uniquely contemplative nature of a funeral.

Yes, which explains why they were a thousand feet away here.

[visionary]

So we're getting somewhere... Couldn't it be argued that the very nature of a funeral qualifies that venue for "reasonable place, time, and manner restrictions"? Any speech is liable to disrupt the uniquely contemplative nature of a funeral.

That's sort of what I was arguing before.

But I think if the protesters stay far enough away that they aren't severely affecting people there without the mourners actively looking for them or interacting with them, it's probably ok.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So we're getting somewhere... Couldn't it be argued that the very nature of a funeral qualifies that venue for "reasonable place, time, and manner restrictions"? Any speech is liable to disrupt the uniquely contemplative nature of a funeral.

Yes.

A "reasonable" restriction is almost never an absolute restriction. Being a thousand feet away is reasonable. Putting the KKK rally on the opposite side of the capitol from the NOI rally would be "reasonable."

When I was in law school in Pittsburgh, the KKK actually held a rally in front of the Allegheny County Building. At first, the city wanted to charge them for the costs of security, which was deemed unconstitutional (and rightly so). So the city set up a "staging area" for them in front of the building and set up barricades around them. They also granted a permit to a counter protest a few blocks away in the city's main square. That's generally the way that these things are handled.

---------- Post added March-4th-2011 at 04:06 PM ----------

That's sort of what I was arguing before.

But I think if the protesters stay far enough away that they aren't severely affecting people there without the mourners actively looking for them or interacting with them, it's probably ok.

Precisely. The father of the fallen soldier did not know that WBC was at the funeral until AFTER he was home that evening and saw it on the news. Basically, his argument was that the intentional infliction of emotional distress was retroactive.

[Dan T.]

Precisely. The father of the fallen soldier did not know that WBC was at the funeral until AFTER he was home that evening and saw it on the news. Basically' date=' his argument was that the intentional infliction of emotional distress was retroactive.[/quote']

Which really seemed like a fatal flaw in making this one the definitive Supreme Court case.