SCOTUS throws out judgment against Phelps clan. 8-1

[speltwon]

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

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissent-ing opinion.

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on amatter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speechcannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly-ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply becausesociety finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995).
The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.”“Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standardwith “an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrumentfor the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some-times unpleasan’” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate must tolerateinsulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provideadequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected bythe First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it
Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011) 13
Opinion of the Court
chose to say it, is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.
For all these reasons, the jury verdict imposing tortliability on Westboro for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be set aside.

[Warpy]

1. Good, they FAILED AGAIN to damage the first amendment

As much as I despise everything those people stand for, I will always defend their right to be as wretchedly wrongheaded as they want to be.

However, free speech does carry real life consequences, and if another organized group shows up to slap them around with dead trout, I will not weep into my pillow over it.

[speltwon]

2. I agree

What we have seen recently, and what clearly is the constitutional way to minimize/stop/hurt the Phelps' cause is for COUNTER protest. Also, it would help if media chose to ignore them. In this case, the people who sued were not even AWARE of the Phelps' protest until they saw the media reports, which of course is why it was found they did not "disrupt" the proceedings. The law stated a 1000 ft buffer, and the Phelps abided by that.

[Tigress DEM]

13. Question: About the 1000 ft buffer, is that for ANY counter protest?

Because I'm concerned that our peaceful protests are either:

A) Being infiltrated by "posers" who are attacking their own to make us look bad (likely, but how to prove it?)

B) Bending under the weight of justifiable frustration on our side that is causing "Malcom X moments" where we are so tired of their lies and constant barrage of inane, inaccurate and uninformed opinions being slobbered out of their mouths, that we progressives are actually getting physical.


I think our "peaceful protests" have to remain such and if the 1000 ft buffer applies to all counter protesters, a "Free Speech Contingent" needs to enforce that buffer zone on our own people to lessen the likelihood of any one of us finally succumbing to the urge to go off on Tea Party fools.

If I knew that was the legal protection for a counter protester, there were 2 state troopers I could have persuaded to move our lone CP to that safe distance and he would not have been hit by two little old ladies.

My gut tells me they could be plants because in separate states women have gone up to CPs and said, "I HATE YOU." That isn't a progressive message - at all. I saw it with my own eyes in Minnesota, even though I didn't see any "coverage" of it.

Several of us did step up and the leaders cautioned everyone to just cover up his sign which said "It's Morons.org" and the troopers stayed beside him too. It could be because there were obviously people protecting his free speech rights that it didn't get press, or he could just have blogged somewhere I haven't found yet.

He was 15 feet behind the speaking platform and if he had been 1000 feet away, I think people would have been less likely to walk that far and start something. He was in our space though, so people did get rankled, even me but I know how to manage myself in these situations.

[Viking12]

5. Agreed.

If they hadn't protected Westboro, it would only be a matter of time before they someone deems progressive speech offensive.

[ehrnst]

9. +1.

[MedicalAdmin]

14. Didja have something like this in mind?

or something like this?

http://www.fishslap.co.uk/home/fishslap1.1294453158031




Either way - sign me up. I've got a few arctic char in the freezer ... (think trout but seriously big)

[Badfish]

3. rec for freedom.

[speltwon]

4. Yes. Also nice to see the near unanimity on this

a very important matter. Only Alito dissented, and imo his dissent reads as mostly strident, not based on solid legal ground.

[Thunderstruck]

6. Good. Dislike Phelps & Co. but love freedom of speech.

[mr_liberal]

7. Alito is a joke.

Breyer is about half a joke.

The decision sounds too narrow to me, but at least it was on the right side..

[Johonny]

12. +1

[LynneSin]

8. Phelps is disgusting but SCOTUS was correct

I find it ironic that I might actually agree with a decision made by Scalia and Thomas.

[speltwon]

10. Contrary to popular belief, Scalia is generally good on speech

I could list a litany of cases. He certainly didn't cotton to any silly anti-flag burning laws. He sucks massively in cases like Raich but those aren't speech cases.

[mr_liberal]

16. He'd vote to censor porn.

He has said that he thinks the rights for sexual expression should be more narrow.

he voted against nude dancing, against fleeting expletives on broadcast tv, for COPA which would have made everybody use credit cards to see "adult material" on the internet.

He's average on free speech at best imo.

[speltwon]

17. I agree, in reflection

I think taken in the totality, he's average on speech. I agree that you make good points. I guess I could amend to say - absent sexual espression issues, he's good on speech - flag burning, etc. iow political speech, no matter how abhorrent. Otoh, let me change my mind again. :) I forgot that Scalia ruled with the majority in The Bong Hits for Jesus Case... That case was RIDICULOUS.

Ok, he's average :)

[shanen]

20. Thomas? Decide?

Uh, don't you mean the decision made by Scalia that just happens to count for two votes?

[DinahMoeHum]

11. Feelings don't trump the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Otherwise, we get to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

:evilfrown:

[NuclearDem]

15. First Amendment win

Phelps and friends might be assholes, but they have the right to be assholes as loud and proud as they want.

[spanone]

18. it's legal for assholes to dissent......

[YellowRubberDuckie]

19. I do agree...

However, I also agree with the places putting limits on their behavior. They are put several blocks away from funerals. Why would you do that to grieving families? It's horrible.
Duckie