So . . . . tomorrow, Westboro is in the Supreme Court over the suit by the Dad of a dead soldier

[Stinky The Clown]

This will be a significant 1st Amendment case.

The Dad of a dead soldier is suing the Phelps family over their doing their God Hates Fags routine at his son's burial.

Can there be any reason to limit free speech? Was the 1st Amendment intended to give you the right to impact a private citizen or simply to protect you if you criticize the government? Does privacy trump free speech?

[spanone]

1. phelps & fools have the right to be disgusting assholes

[depakid]

36. The father ought to have a right to a tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress

The highly misunderstood 1st Amendment shouldn't provide blanket immunity for the consquences of extreme and outrageous behavior directed at private individuals like Mr. Snyder.

Obviously, some will disagree. E.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/funerals-and-free-speech_b_753590.html

[OmahaBlueDog]

2. I'm hoping the SCOTUS sends them to Gitmo

...it is wrong, but it pleases me to hope for this outcome. :evilgrin:

[MiniMe]

3. Good questions

It is illegal to shout Fire in a theater. As disgusting as this clan is, unfortunately it falls under free speech. I think they should be locked up for being crazy mf-ers.

[Bragi]

15. On shouting fire in a crowded theater

That is legal if you have a reasonable belief that there is a fire in the theater.

[surrealAmerican]

17. The question here is more like ...

... "what if it's an unreasonable belief?" If a person is delusional, and thinks there is a fire due to his hallucinations.

[Bragi]

18. What is an unreasonable religious belief?

I mean, other than the whole thing in its entirety?

If it is reasonable to believe that a Biblical SkyDaddy exists, why is it unreasonable to believe that he loves/hates one group or another?

[BzaDem]

25. It does not necessarily fall under free speech. There are plenty of time, place, and manner

restrictions that the Supreme court says are constitutional. I think they will unanimously vote that this speech is not protected (though possibly for different reasons).

[ChoppinBroccoli]

4. What's Really Disgusting About This Case

Is that while the Westboro Baptist Nuts are quite possibly the lowest life forms on Earth.............they're probably right.

The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech. Ignorant, narrow-minded, bigoted speech is the kind of speech that is MOST in need of protection, because if censorship of content and/or prior restraint becomes legal, it's a very slippery slope. It could very easily lead the xenophobic politicians that comprise a huge percentage of a certain political party to consider reenacting the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I think the Supreme Court will likely uphold their right to protest the funerals, but in exchange, will allow for what's called "time, place, manner" restrictions to be placed upon such protests. For example, the protest will have to be held either a certain number of feet away from the funeral site or off cemetery grounds altogether, or maybe on a different day, or something along those lines. I think this is a compromise that would pass Constitutional muster.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. The sort of DOES go to answering the questions I posed.

The part of this that has people really incensed is the notion that these creeps do this in a very invasive way at what ought to be a private moment, albeit one observed in a public place. The "time, place, manner" restrictions, as you call them, seem perfectly reasonable to me. No one's fundamental right to say anything is abridged, but their ability to intrude is.

On the flip side, how is that different from the bush boy's "free speech zones?" Well, to answer my own questions, the bush boy's speeches were public and political. It seems to me that was the essential intent of the speech protection, not a protest at a dead soldier's funeral. I think the "free speech zones should be abolished and the rights of the Westboroans narrowed with respect to time, place, and manner of protest.

Good ideas, indeed! Thanks!

[blondeatlast]

8. I hope SCOTUS sees it that way. I can see the difference this way:

You take your kid to a public park for his b-day have reserved a covered area. Even though you are on public land, the kid who bullies your kid at school can't disrupt the party without legal consequences.

There's a "reasonable" degree of privacy built into the reservation agreement; perhaps the same expectation applies here.

This is a tough case; God knows I loathe the Phelps clan but there's going to be a fine edge of law applied here.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

42. "Time, Place, Manner" Restrictions Have Been Declared Constitutional

It's been 15 years since I took Constitutional Law during my first year in Law School, so I unfortunately can't cite you the name of the case that says so, but I do know that "time, place, manner" restrictions are Constitutionally acceptable. They're one of the "exceptions" to the First Amendment, just like the "Clear and Present Danger" rule is (also known as the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" exception).

And to answer your question regarding Bush's "free speech zones," the difference is that with "time, place, manner" restrictions, the restrictions are universal and apply to EVERYONE. Bush's "free speech zones" were only for the people who disagreed with him (yet another shocking violation of our Constitutional rights--oh, but don't forget, Obama is the one who's taking away your freedoms and shredding the Constitution).

[Jester Messiah]

14. Sadly concur

As an atheist, I wish most fervently that these lowlifes would all get much-needed lead injections. That said, as a purveyor of often-unpopular ideas I can't bring myself to root for the restriction of free speech.

[CRK7376]

21. I agree

I think they will win unfortunately. But as a Soldier I protect and defend the Constitution, even when it allows nutjobs like the Phelps to spew their hate.

[WillowTree]

5. Not sure I know the correct answer to your questions, but I do know....

.....that I'd give a lot to hear how that crazy witch tries to justify their cruel, deliberately hateful actions. That ought to be good.

[X_Digger]

7. Yes, there are limits, but.. as much as I hate to say it..

The Phelps Moron Road Show will probably prevail.

Content neutral time, place, and manner restrictions have been upheld as constitutional, but that doesn't mean that a protest can be moved to a 'place' or 'time' so far removed from the activity so as to be meaningless. And it certainly means that total bans on such activity will never pass muster.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

9. The 1st Amendment gives the media the right to impact (destroy) a private

citizen's life with lies and innuendo. They do it every day. I guess if they can do it, churches can do it. In our bassackwards country, corporations are people - with the same rights. The court is an extremist right-wing corporate court. I'm guessing they'll rule this A-OK (under the extremist right-wing bit).

I hope I'm wrong. Because I'd like to see this 'trend' reversed, even if it wouldn't completely happen in my lifetime.

[CTD]

10. The Roberts court is eager to undo our rights using cases like this

Roberts loves cases like this, where there is a clear "bad guy" that you can rule against and, at the same time, work to undermine long-standing rights and precedent.

Read- http://www.slate.com/id/2269715/

As much as we all despise Phelps and the Westboro Baptist nutters, we have to hope they win.

[JonLP24]

26. Wish I could rec your post

Great article!

[depakid]

38. If you think you have "the right" to say and do anything without consequence

for harm you knowingly cause another, you have another think coming.

[blondeatlast]

41. GREAT article; thank you. nt

[blondeatlast]

43. I posted that article as a stand-alone thread with a tip of the hat to you. Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9271019

[leftstreet]

45. +1

[DirkGently]

11. There's a saying about hard facts making bad law. The 1st Amendment must protect @ssholes.

[_ed_]

12. The only weapon against bad speech

should be better speech.

This case seems to be a perfect way to erode speech rights for the Roberts court.

[Gin]

13. I read somewhere that one of their signs was attacking the father

of the soldier and that's why he sued...the first amendment
(from what I understand) covers generalities...when they got specific to the father...they screwed up...

the attorney for PHELPS is not experienced in front of the SC....hope she shows her ass.

[BzaDem]

27. Nope. It won't be just the "Roberts" court that says this speech is unprotected --

It will likely be unanimous.

There are MANY restrictions on speech (such as "time, place, and manner") restrictions that are completely constitutional.

[Bragi]

16. I too hope the 1st amendment is upheld

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. How exactly is the suit?

If it's a request for restitution for distress caused, I don't see any free speech issue. I imagine it's something different, then?

[BzaDem]

28. It's a request for restitution for emotional distress, and they will likely win in the Supreme Court

It might even be unanimous (judging from the arguments).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. Then I fail to see how this is a violation of free speech. -nt

[Bozita]

20. I've felt for a long time that Phelps is a RW stooge working on weakening the 1st Amendment.

I hope he doesn't succeed.

[cbdo2007]

22. The suit isn't about the 1st amendment but about personal attacks WBC made

about the dead soldiers father.

The outcome of the court's decision will not have any effect on whether or not Westboro will still be able to protest at military funerals.

[moondust]

23. Free Speech Zones --> Privacy Zones?

Human Indecency Zones?

[krispos42]

24. I hope Westboro wins

:puke:



Gah, I can't believe I just said that. Bleah.




Assholes they are, it's their constitutional and civic right to do so unless the cemetary is private property and the cemetary owners have asked them to leave.

[BzaDem]

29. That is not true. You are acting as if there are no "time, place, and manner" restrictions that are

perfectly Constitutional.

From the arguments, it is pretty clear that Snyder will win. The only question is likely whether or not it will be unanimous (and it very well might).

[krispos42]

31. I don't have the details of the merits of the case

I admit being ill-informed of the details, but I am uncomfortable with the SCOTUS narrowing time, place, or manner restrictions of the Phelps fucks. They gather and wave signs and yell things; it's my understanding that they are not nearly as in-your-face as the Operation Rescue fanatics and that there is no history of WBC followers killing or otherwise terrorizing people. Absent that sort of behavior I can't see establishing an abnormally large distance for protesting.

Unfortunately.


I hope the Patriot Guard Riders continue to help keep the Phelps fucks out of sight.

[BzaDem]

33. The issue is that they are airing disgusting personal attacks on a non-public figure AT the funeral.

If what they are saying is otherwise constitutionally protected, they can do it somewhere ELSE. That does not strike me as a radical anti-first-amendment position.

[krispos42]

35. Forcing them to do it someplace else is the issue, I guess.

Unless there is a clear and present public-safety issue I can't see making them move someplace else.

[cbdo2007]

37. Here is a good article on the details:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-funerals-20101007,0,7401118.story

From the article:

In 2006, family members traveled to Maryland, where they held antiwar and anti-gay signs at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, and they also put on their website a message that accused his father, Albert Snyder, of having raised his son "to defy the creator" and "serve the devil."

A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was thrown out on free-speech grounds.

Snyder sued the Phelps family under a common provision of state law that permits claims for an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On Wednesday, the justices seemed to agree that a general protest sign, such as "Stop the War" or even "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would be protected as free speech. The Phelps family crossed the line when it targeted the dead Marine's father with their protest, argued Sean E. Summers, a lawyer for Snyder. "We have personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family," he said.

[krispos42]

40. Thanks for the article. The implications of this ruling are broad, aren't they?

Shit. This means that places like DU can be in trouble if a member decides to rip a person a new asshole. Say, for example, a certain homeowner doesn't pay for fire department coverage and is called a variety of names. So now DU and the member can potentially be sued...?

So Phelps lost the opening round, then won on appeal.


Shit. I'm torn on this. On the one hand the current standard would seem to be slightly inadequate; on the other hand changing it could really be far-reaching and chilling.

My issue is that the Phelps critters doesn't do a prolonged protest. They don't camp outside of a Gold Star family for weeks or months on end screaming about how it's the family's child-rearing that killed their son, unlike the Op. Rescue fanatics. And if the Phelps critters put their accusations on their website... well, unlike broadcast media or other public advertising, you won't find the accusations unless you go looking for them.

Blah. Glad I'm not a lawyer. Or a justice.

[cbdo2007]

46. Yes, implications are broad and I agree with you - I'm glad I'm watching rather than participating.

Part of me wants to protect free speech and the other part of me wants Westboro to pay.

[cbdo2007]

34. See my post a few below this one - the issue is harrassment and personal attacks - not free speech.

In response to your email, there already are restrictions to free speech - such as that you can't slander people or yell "Fire" in a theater. This is a similar circumstance, where they made personal attacks against the defendants, so he sued them for those personal attacks, not for the protests themselves.

Supreme Court today clearly said the Westboro people can protest wherever they would like and can say whatever they would like...the question they are looking into is where the line is between protesting and spewing lies about people to intentionally cause them emotional harm.

[H2O Man]

30. While it is an

Amendment 1 case, it has far more to do with the right to assemble in public to air grievances with the government, than free speech. The question isn't if these folks have the right to say hateful things in public; everyone agrees that they do. It has much more to do with the manner in which they do this.

The federal court system has ruled that public assembly rights are far more restricted than free speech. Martin Luther King, Jr., and friends actually lost their largest federal court case in which they were contesting this issue. And, obviously, those attempting to publicly express grievances against the Bush/Cheney administration were highly -- and often illegally -- restricted.

The characters in question have no Constitutional right to disrupt and harass those families who are attending funerals, in my opinion. It seems that, if nothing else, they need to be kept at a distance for their own safety. I'm surprised that people haven't reacted to them in a harsh manner.

[cbdo2007]

32. Actually, it only has anything to do with personal attacks Westboro made against the parents

of the dead soldier...it doesn't have anything to do with the right to assemble or free speech.

They made a verbal personal attack on the parents of the soldier, so he sued them because of his state's law. Supreme Court today said they don't have anything against Westboro for their freedom of speech or their protesting, but their problem is when they cross the line and start making untrue personal attacks against the person with the intent of causing emotional distress.


It really isn't a first amendment case at all.

[H2O Man]

39. Respectfully disagree.

The father of Matthew Snyder won a $5 million jury verdict against the Westboro Clan for their intentional infliction of emotional distress and violating the sanctity of Matthew's funeral. The judgement was appealed in federal court, and overturned based upon Amendment 1 rights.

Now the Supreme Court is hearing it. They only hear cases involving constitutional issues. And the issue at hand is indeed Amendment 1 rights.

The lower federal court ruled the judgement violated "free speech." The Supreme Court will, of course, not be focusing on the Amendment 1 issue of "freedom of religion." The Westboro Clan has the right to believe that God hates America. More, it's not limited to free speech: they have the right to say hateful things in public, or in print. The issue is one of setting: do they have the right to disrupt funerals and burials, in exercising their freedom of speech?

Ugly yet interesting case.