US Supreme Court allows anti-gay funeral protests

[Chevy]

Source: BBC News

The US Supreme Court has ruled an anti-gay church has the right to picket military funerals under the US constitution's free speech protections.

The court ruled 8-1 for the Westboro Baptist Church, throwing out an earlier $5m (£3m) judgement awarded to the father of a fallen US Marine.

Members carried signs denouncing the US for its tolerance of homosexuality.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote church members' speech cannot be limited "simply because it is upsetting".

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12624539

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Harassing a dead GI's family at the funeral w. homophobic bullshit...

... is as close to crying " fire in a crowded theater" ( the historic free-speech-line-which-cannot-be-crossed) as one can get .

[Chevy]

3. And Alito

was the only dissenter. Figure that one out:shrug:

[elleng]

2. Been posted and discussed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4753709

[AlbertCat]

4. Why is this family scam business considered a church?

What are the legal definitions of what constitutes a church.... or other religious entity... that may claim tax exemption?

I mean, is this a Baptist position? That dead GIs are punishment for tolerating gays? Is that in the official Baptist charter? What makes the Phelps family a Baptist church? Just because they say they are?


TAX THE CHURCHES
TAX THE BUSINESSES OWNED BY THE CHURCHES


I bet they couldn't afford their far flung protests if they were taxed.


And how does paying for psych harm and harassment endanger their right to free speech? They are free to harass, and pay the fine.

[VermeerLives]

59. That's what I'd like to know

Why do they still enjoy tax exempt status? I wonder if there would be legal grounds for pulling it.

[VermeerLives]

60. We need to come up with ideas on how to counter-protest

Decent citizens are going to have to start showing up en masse to counterprotest whenever the Westboro bigots come to town. You may recall that at one recent funeral, bikers showed up and surrounded them and drowned them out. During this same incident, someone slashed all the tires on the church's van. And no auto shop in that town would help them! They were forced to finally call a tow truck.

Any ideas here?

[SharonRB]

5. High Court Rules for Military Funeral Protesters

Source: Washington Post

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 2, 2011; 10:27 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.





Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030202548.html?wpisrc=nl_polalert

---

Are you kidding me? 8-1 and Alito dissented?

[NYC Liberal]

6. Good. I want to read Alito's opinion and see wtf he had to say.

Non-controversial speech that everyone agrees with doesn't need protecting. It's the speech that everyone disagrees with that needs it the most.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Exactly. n/t

[uppityperson]

8. Indeed, it is rather telling that it was 8-1

[speltwon]

36. Here's the decision. I agree with it. Alito's dissent is lame

imnsho

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

[Renew Deal]

9. What is there for Alito to dissent?

:wtf:

[former9thward]

25. Disruption obviously.

Free speech can't be used as an excuse to disrupt public gatherings. That has never been the case. I have not read Alito's dissent but I imagine it centered around that.

[elleng]

27. See my post, # 9, for Alito dissent.

'Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.' >>>

[speltwon]

37. Considering the complainant didn't even know the Phelps clan was there

until they later saw a media report clearly dismisses any "disruption" claim. Alito's dissent is lame, but it centered around the maliciousness etc. and is a poor dissent imo

[plumbob]

10. Time to form a church called "God Hates Westboro" and begin

picketing them at their homes and church and any other place they go with signs like:

"God hates Fred Phelps"
"Westboro is going to hell!"
"Phelps family raises psychos"

and then sue them any time they file a complaint or interfere with activities in any way.

Seems to me the best thing would be to buy property across the street for a start.

Here's a real money-maker for an entrepreneur out there!

[demwing]

11. How about a Church called "God Loves Gays" ?

Why shoot anymore attention back at those inbreeding mother fuckers (is that redundant?)

[plumbob]

48. You're right, of course, but I really find myself angry that these

pieces of filth prosper.

[demwing]

53. right there with you, and then some. They make me consider non-peaceful protests

for a moment, till my better nature takes control.

Besides, I know they WANT us to get mad. That's the point, piss people off enough till they break into violence, then sue them. As far as I can tell, that's the primary method by which Westboro is funded.

[24601]

56. God spoke to me in my sleep last night. Fred Phelps is going to

suck Muslim cocks in hell, for eternity. (with creative credit to The Exorcist)

Tonight, He's gonna tell me His plan for Phelp's daughter - I think it has to do with a certain establishment in Russia. Some kind of a brothel for syphilitic farm animals that produces beasty porn. She's a lawyer, so it's a two-fer!

[elleng]

12. Measured. Breyer concurred separately. Summary:

'Our holding today is narrow. We are required in First Amendment cases to carefully review the record, and the reach of our opinion here is limited by the particular facts before us. As we have noted, “the sensitivity and significance of the interests presented in clashes between First Amendment and rights counsel relying on limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case.”

Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.

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. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.'

http://forums.somd.com/news-current-events/202598-remember-westboro-baptist-church-funeral-5.html

[Newsjock]

13. But if the signs said "Bush is a war criminal" outside the RNC

... you can be sure that SCOTUS would have ruled differently.

This ruling is just another victory for the increasingly virulent strain of libertarianism -- the strain that's all about "me" and lacks respect for others -- that's seeping across the American landscape.

Edit to add: This comment (not mine), from the SF Chronicle's version of the story, is important:

How is it possible that political protesters are escorted away from presidential motorcade routes, and kept out of public spaces at political events, yet these unkind church members have the right to invade the most private of moments at cemeteries?

There is something truly wrong here.

[speltwon]

38. It's a victory for the 1st amendment

not a "virulent strain of libertarianism"

They didn't "invade any private moment". They were in excess of 1000 ft away, as per local ordinance, and the claimants didn't even know they were THERE until they saw the reports on tv.

Did you even read the decision, or are you just reading SF Chronicle etc. "accounts?"

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

That's the actual case.

[hugo_from_TN]

54. BS - plenty have held signs saying Bush is a war criminal

none are in jail

[elleng]

14. Alito:

'Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.
Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such anincalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury.1 The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree. …
First—and most important—the Court finds that “the overall thrust and dominant theme of demonstration spoke to” broad public issues. Ante, at 8. As I have attempted to show, this portrayal is quite inaccurate; respondents’ attack on Matthew was of central importance. But in any event, I fail to see why actionable speech should be immunized simply because it is interspersed with speech that is protected. The First Amendment allows recovery for defamatory statements that are interspersed with nondefamatory statements on matters of public concern, and there is no good reason why respondents’ attack on Matthew Snyder and his family should be treated differently.
Second, the Court suggests that respondents’ personal attack on Matthew Snyder is entitled to First Amendment protection because it was not motivated by a private grudge, see ante, at 9, but I see no basis for the strange distinction that the Court appears to draw. Respondents’ motivation—“to increase publicity for its views,” ibid.—did not transform their statements attacking the character of a private figure into statements that made a contribution to debate on matters of public concern. Nor did their publicity-seeking motivation soften the sting of their attack. And as far as culpability is concerned, one might well think that wounding statements uttered in the heat of a private feud are less, not more, blameworthy than similar statements made as part of a cold and calculated strategy to slash a stranger as a means of attracting public attention.
Third, the Court finds it significant that respondents’ protest occurred on a public street, but this fact alone should not be enough to preclude IIED liability. To be sure, statements made on a public street may be less likely to satisfy the elements of the IIED tort than statements made on private property, but there is no reason why a public street in close proximity to the scene of a funeral should be regarded as a free-fire zone in which otherwise actionable verbal attacks are shielded from liability. If the First Amendment permits the States to protect their residents from the harm inflicted by such attacks—and the Court does not hold otherwise—then the location of the tort should not be dispositive. A physical assault may occur without trespassing; it is no defense that the perpetrator had “the right to be where .” See ante, at 11. And the same should be true with respect to unprotected speech. Neither classic “fighting words” nor defamatory statements are immunized when they occur in a public place, and there is no good reason to treat a verbal assault based on the conduct or character of a private figure like Matthew Snyder any differently.'

Entire decision also available here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/02/scotus-no-jackass-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

[elleng]

15. Entire decision, pdf:

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

(Includes Breyer's separate concurrence.)

[iandhr]

16. High court rules for military funeral protesters

Source: Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030202548.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert

[whistler162]

17. Like the Skokie nazi protesters so long ago....

don't like the prostestors but the right needs to be protected.

[AngryAmish]

18. Biggest IRL trolls, ever

[MNBrewer]

19. The more visible WBC is

the more people will be repulsed by their message of hate, and turn in the opposite direction.

[cbdo2007]

20. this wasn't about the funeral protests, it was about them slandering the soldier's family

in an internet post afterwards.

[elleng]

23. Was NOT.

Justice Breyer said this specifically in his first paragraph, page 1 following page 15 of Court's decision:

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

[cbdo2007]

24. Then it was all a waste of time.

We all already know they are protected by the First Amendment for the picketing. The lawsuit the guy filed was in regards to the slander of him and his family by the WBC. Wonder why they didn't rule on this? too much thought perhaps?

[elleng]

26. Read the decision.

May have been a waste of time, but Snyder family didn't think so, I guess.

What 'we already know' many do not know, or like, or accept. First Amendment is difficult.

[speltwon]

39. No, it WAS NOT

Read the case... here

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

It was not a slander case. THe case was for intentional inflication of emotional duress, and entirely different standard than slander.

[Poll_Blind]

21. Good ruling and this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Alito is the WORST...

...judge on that bench. I understand, I think everyone reading this understands his feelings on the matter but only he actually dissented. You get 4 more like Alito on the bench and watch out: You'll have a bunch of "righteous" decisions by the court against odious things we don't like- and no more freedom, either.

PB

[Demeter]

22. Okay. Then Supreme Court Funerals Are ALSO Fair Game

[struggle4progress]

28. I despise WBC. I think it constitutional to keep counter-demonstrations at a distance

from funerals. As a juror, I might well vote to acquit a recently-bereaved person who spontaneously assaulted a face-to-face taunter, since confrontational taunting of the bereaved could be regarded as "fighting words." But free speech must include the right to say things other people find offensive or hurtful, even if ordinary decency should generally restrain us. I haven't read the decision, but (from the little I know of the case) it seems correct to me

Snyder v. Phelps excerpt: Roberts's majority opinion in Westboro church case
Wednesday, March 2, 2011; 11:31 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030203069.html

[SoapBox]

29. This "free speech" gone wild...

I want to understand...but I can't and won't.

There should be limits...YES, I know, slippery slope.

But the free speech thing has gone over the cliff while
other aspects of America are just wrong.

DADT?

[speltwon]

40. Our first amendment has always been over the cliff when compared to most other nations

and I hope it always stays that way. It's radical, it's extreme, and it's a bedrock principle in our nation.

Always has been, and hopefully always will.

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

[ManiacJoe]

30. Some folks may not like the source,

but Fox News has a good write-up on this.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/02/westboro-funeral-pickets-protected-speech-high-court-rules/

[The Nexus]

31. If church members get their asses killed by a drive-by...

I don't wanna hear it

[alp227]

32. Supreme Court rules for anti-gay church over military funeral protests

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church known for its angry, anti-gay protests at funerals of U.S. troops won an appeal Wednesday at the Supreme Court in a case testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"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," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

(snip)

Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He said the church's "outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered," he said. "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html

---

Wow. Only...Alito dissented??? Both of Obama's nominees voted in favor of frickin' Fred Phelps? I am just astounded.

[no_hypocrisy]

33. The plaintiffs have the option of a civil tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress

with punitive damages. Outrageous behavior is not absolutely sanctioned and protected.

[speltwon]

42. lol. This case already threw out a tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress

Did you even read the decision?

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

The claim was EXACTLY for that. It was thrown out

[no_hypocrisy]

43. No I didn't (obviously). I thought it was based a case in equity, like

an injunction.

[speltwon]

44. Ok. It was based on the complainant suing because of emotional distress

which interestingly occurred after he became aware of the protest, which didn't happen until the media reports came out. I think that was a big part of it. The local law already established a 1000 ft buffer zone, which the Phelps clan complied with.

[no_hypocrisy]

45. If memory serves, emotional distress has elements of it has to be

so close that you are included in the target range; it has to be immediate (not time-released) in its effect, and it has to be so outrageous that it's out of the bounds of reasonable decency. And the perpetrator has to be motivated to hurt you specifically, not a byproduct of his/her/their behavior.

[speltwon]

46. That sounds right

although civil law aint my thang. I also note the court ruled that the Phelps protest was on a matter of "public concern" which makes it even more protected.

[Rabrrrrrr]

34. Loathesome and (truly) god-awful as the phelpseseses are, this is first amendment stuff all the way.

I'm surprised Alito was the dissenter, though.

But I am also glad to see the Constitution upheld, at least once in a while, by the bastards.

[speltwon]

41. They voted in favor of freedom, not Fred Phelps

Just as they voted in favor of freedom, not the Nazis or the ACLU in Skokie. Just as they ruled in favor of freedom from unreasonable searches oh so many times, not scumbag criminals. Just as.... This is about principles, not persons. Rule of law, not people.

[mr_liberal]

35. Glad for the decision, but

a little concerned by how narrow it is.

Breyer once again disappoints by being even more conservative than the conservatives.

Except for Alito who seems like he woud let the gov't do just about whatever it wants. He has quickly become the worst justice on the court.

[somone]

47. Westboro Baptist Church to 'Quadruple' Funeral Protests After Ruling

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/westboro-baptist-church-quadruple-military-funeral-protests-supreme/story?id=13039045

[WatsonT]

50. They better start reproducing then

as the church is basically just this one family.

[WatsonT]

49. They didn't rule for the Westboro nutjobs

they ruled for the 1st amendment. The distinction is slight, I'll grant that, but significant.

[The Northerner]

51. +1

[customerserviceguy]

52. It makes me wonder what happens when the SCOTUS

finally gets a really solid hate crime case, when there is no physical violence. If "God hates fags" is protected free speech, then anybody else who uses verbal violence against gay people, people of color, or any other protected (now or in the future) group, is going to properly cite this case as precident.

Maybe the First Amendment protects these assholes, it's the fans of the Second Amendment that they have to watch out for now, since the case has run its legal course.

[hugo_from_TN]

55. There is no such thing as verbal violence.

That is all.

[WatsonT]

57. Verbal violence?

That makes little sense.

Actual violence sure. But you can't arrest someone because they hurt someone elses feelings. Not in the US at least.

[Hosnon]

58. I think they got this one right. nt.