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

[ECU-ALUM]

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:

[visionary]

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?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

[Popeman38]

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........

[Corcaigh]

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.

[greenspandan]

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

[visionary]

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.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

[ECU-ALUM]

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.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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?

[Bliz]

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

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

[ACW]

I agree w/ this decision :(

[AsburySkinsFan]

Legal opinion time:
Doesn't this just mean that the government can't stop these people?

[GhostofSparta]

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.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

[Teller]

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

[skinsfan_1215]

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.

[visionary]

That's not your determination to make.



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?

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.

[SonOfWashington]

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

[endzone_dave]

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.

[Enter Apotheosis]

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.

[AsburySkinsFan]

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

As am I.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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?"

[December90]

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.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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?

[greenspandan]

man i can't wait to see the the party -- excuse me, "protest" -- that takes place at reverend phelps' funeral.

[Bliz]

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.

They're 1000 feet away. Not right next to the plot and interrupting the service. I thought the "protest outside an abortion clinic" was a perfect comparison. Certainly an extreme emotional state.

as much as I despise WB and their message, you don't lose your right to speak simply because what you have to say is unpopular, disrespectful or reprehensible (and they are all of those things and more)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Here's a question.

Would it have been all right to protest Ike Turner's funeral? Could NOW have held signs that said "Women beaters will burn in hell" and would that have been acceptable?

Is it just military funerals?

How about Nixon's funeral? Old people were there. His children were there.

Could I have held a sign that said "Cambodian children did not get to lie in state!"?

[deejaydana]

I'm not getting involved in any "for or against" war debates but why on Earth would someone attend a funeral where they don't know anyone and make a statement. Seems like it's in incredibly poor taste.

[stanleys]

The SC made the correct decision.


If you could legally shut down WBC, you could also legally shut down the protestors in Wisconsin for example.

Both have inflammatory signage "God hates Fags" vs "Walker is Hitler".

You'd also be able to shut down any Tea Party protests on the other side of the spectrum.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm not getting involved in any "for or against" war debates but why on Earth would someone attend a funeral where they don't know anyone and make a statement. Seems like it's in incredibly poor taste.

Because they are crazy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You'd also be able to shut down any Tea Party protests on the other side of the spectrum.
You might be on to something here. j/k

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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

I thought the right-wing slant was Thomas as most extreme but least powerful, Scalia as slightly less extreme than Thomas but a better writer, Alito, Roberts.

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

His dissent travels into some pretty weird areas. His logic is that the deceased - as a private individual - was defamed by the signs. By dead people cannot be defamed. He's basically created a new right out of thin air and argued that in a balancing test, that right is more important than the right to political speech.

---------- Post added March-2nd-2011 at 12:49 PM ----------


Nice to see another unbiased CNN report. They are starting to rival TMZ for journalism standards.

Huh?

[stanleys]

You might be on to something here. j/k



Plus you could bankrupt Jesse Jackson......after all Phelps is basically following his blueprint....prominent during the Civil Rights era....use a church's tax exempt status to launder money...run for office but lose the Democratic primary...then start the shakedown routine.

[Painkiller]

Just do like the people in La Plata did. Overrun the sidewalks with a couple thousand supporters of the dead soldier before these pricks even get a chance to arrive. You can't protest if you have nowhere to stand. End of problem.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nice to see another unbiased CNN report. They are starting to rival TMZ for journalism standards.

Uhhhh..............I know you think that CNN is the Communist News Network but what are you talking about? Something tells me that I'm going to be sorry I asked.

***starts folding his tin-foil hat.

[deejaydana]

This also seems like something that will lead to violence. Imagine attending a relative's/family member's funeral and having someone there with picket signs. I'd be throwing down on them in a minute.

[Thiebear]

I told you people: The Templars were a good idea, you just had to go and crucify them all..

Now we need them to clean up a little mess and nooooo...

[visionary]

They're 1000 feet away. Not right next to the plot and interrupting the service. I thought the "protest outside an abortion clinic" was a perfect comparison. Certainly an extreme emotional state.

as much as I despise WB and their message, you don't lose your right to speak simply because what you have to say is unpopular, disrespectful or reprehensible (and they are all of those things and more)
This has nothing to do with the message of the Westboro folks.
It has to do with the harm they may cause to those at the funeral.
As long as they don't interfere with the funeral in a way that endangers the people there, it should be allowed.
I'm not saying to suspend free speech at funerals or all protesting should be made illegal.
I don't think there's any problem with protesting policy or the governement there.
I'm simply saying that protesting the dead and harassing the mourners at a funeral is inviting dangerous consequences.
I think it would maybe be ok though if they're far enough away that the mourners wouldn't notice them without trying.

[deejaydana]

I just love the title of the story and how they quote a single dissenting justice. Basically this is one case that was not divided along party or ideogical lines and still CNN brings their typical diviseness to the table.

CNN jumped the shark a few years back when they decided they had to sell out to gain eyeballs. They're certainly not what they were 15-20 years ago.
It's funny that people on this board can't recognize that what Fox does happens over at CNN as well.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This also seems like something that will lead to violence. Imagine attending a relative's/family member's funeral and having someone there with picket signs. I'd be throwing down on them in a minute.

It's six to ten people who stand 1,000 feet away. They have never responded to threats or violence. Again, the Phelps Family knows what it is doing.

Anyway, the key in this case to me has always been that the father did not what the signs said until he saw them on the news later that night. To me, he could have just as easily named the news broadcast as a defendant since "but for" it, he would not have suffered emotional distress.

[skinfan13]

it's the price of liberty, guys. either accept it or admit you'd rather be comfortable than free. This. There is no other acceptable answer.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This has nothing to do with the message of the Westboro folks.
It has to do with the harm they may cause to those at the funeral.

May cause. It's speculative. That would be a classic case of prior restraint.

Find a case where someone can prove actual damages and try again.

[Madison Redskin]

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........

My thoughts exactly. It's amazing, we agree about something. ;)

[Destino]

Seems like an obvious ruling. Those people are horrible for what they've done at military funerals and with gays... but freedom doesn't mean everything goes nicely or as we want it. I feel horrible for the kids caught up in that.

[headexplode]

I just love the title of the story and how they quote a single dissenting justice. Basically this is one case that was not divided along party or ideogical lines and still CNN brings their typical diviseness to the table.

Are you saying the WBC is not anti-gay? Maybe you would prefer a distinction between the kind of virulent homophobia that they practice and the kinder, good ole-fashioned homophobia that is ostensibly a means to protect the Family.

Also, the dissenting opinion in this case is important exactly because this decision does not reflect the more typically partisan decisions.

It appears you are the one looking for divisiveness.

[Bliz]

I just love the title of the story and how they quote a single dissenting justice. Basically this is one case that was not divided along party or ideogical lines and still CNN brings their typical diviseness to the table.

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?

[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.

[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 :rolleyes:

[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, 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.

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."

[Yusuf06]

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, 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, his argument was that the intentional infliction of emotional distress was retroactive.

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

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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

It's not definitive. It's really just one in a line of a dozen similar cases.

You are probably never going to get a case where WBC can be reasonably charged with intentional infliction of emotional distress because that group knows the law far too well and is far too disciplined. It's one large family and everyone in it has a law degree.

[Spec138]

Well it seems anonymous finally struck back at WBC

Skip to 8:00 for the good part :ols:

Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM)

[China]

http://media.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/other/Westboro.PDF

[B55Green]

The first thing you are taught, is respect and that's the one thing this country lacks entirely.

[ACW]

The first thing you are taught, is respect and that's the one thing this country lacks entirely.:wtf: