I hate Fred Phelps, and his gang, but the SC made the right decision.

[center rising]

As far as I'm concerned, the Westboro Baptist Church are the ugliest bunch of bastards roaming the planet today. Nothing would make me happier than somehow taking these gutless, vile, disgusting pieces of trash away forever, but if this is going to be the country that takes its first amendment rights seriously, then the Supreme Court made the right decision today regarding this case. I don't like it, but it was the right decision.

We live in a country that is a free and open society, and many different views are spoken and that's how it should be. If dissent were to be shut down, then we would be no better off than North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, or any other country that squashes opposing points of view.

I have no love for Fred Phelps, or his goon squad, and I hope that every time they appear at a funeral for one of our brave servicemen or women, they get back a 1000 fold on what they shout out, but the first amendment is very clear here. Even the vermin of society are protected, and hopefully it remains that way.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

1. I Actually Predicted This

As much as I hate Phelps and all his followers, and as much as I despise everything they say, do, and believe in, Constitutionally speaking, they are right on this one. The Constitution protects ALL speech, ESPECIALLY speech we disagree with and/or dislike. So, while this decision might seem like a bitter pill to swallow, it's actually the correct ruling and helps to protect freedom for all of us.

However, back when I predicted that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of their right to assemble, I also said that I thought it was likely that the Court would encourage "time, place, manner" restrictions on their ability to protest. Does anyone who has read the decision know if the Court left that door open, or is it just a straight, "they have a Constitutional right to protest" kind of thing?

I'd be willing to bet that the States would be Constitutionally permitted to place "time, place, manner" restrictions on these protests. For example, if the State Legislature were to pass a bill requiring that all protests of funerals take place no closer than X number of feet away from the funeral grounds/funeral route. Something like that, I would think, would be OK.

[BzaDem]

2. The decision did not rule out state laws prohibiting such protests at funerals.

It was specifically about whether or not to sustain a tort action in the absence of such a statute prohibiting such protests. The decision was narrow in that respect.

[Matariki]

3. Yep. Agreed. But free speech goes both ways.

And the Phelps' should be targeted w/ counter protests, maybe even at their 'compound' and law firms. Actually that's a waste of time on those assholes. I like what that town did when their tires were slashes - no on would fix the flat and they had to drive miles out of town until they found a Costco or something. Maybe if folks refuse them *any* services in the towns they protest in... including hotels, gas stations, bathrooms, and restaurants - maybe they'd just go away.

[Canuckistanian]

4. I don't see how the Phelps' could have lost

The 1st Amendment is fairly clear and the precedents for defending it are legion.

If you accept Larry Flynt, then you've got to accept the Westboro clan.

[Foo Fighter]

5. I have to agree.

Quite a few years back, I remember reading an article where the neo-Nazi movement had filed all of the necessary paperwork, etc., to allow them to have a demonstration. The city denied them that right and, IMHO, that was entirely wrong. While I absolutley and completely disagree 100% with what the neo-Nazis stand for, I will fight like hell for their Constitutional right to express their views. And while I respect their right to hold their demonstration, when that demonstration occurs, I will hope they also respect my right to stand across the street and protest their demonstration (provided any necessary permits, if any, have been approved). Because that's where I would be.

After all, if we impose restrictions on "those we disagree with," we would all lose our freedom of speech. No government should have the right to decide what is and isn't "acceptable" as far as freedom of speech goes (with the obvious exception of death threats, etc.).

As completely abhorent as the Westboro group is, the SC did make the right ruling. The best way to counter that group is to have people there blocking the view so the family doesn't have to see them and singing the national anthem or something so they don't have to hear them.

[Jmaxfie1]

6. Yeah, was it the Skokie rally you were thinking of? n/a

[Foo Fighter]

7. I'm sorry but I don't recall what city it was in.

This was way back in the mid-80s or early 90s. I *think* it might have been somewhere in Michigan but I could be wrong on that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. I feel safer when crack pots have a public forum.

At least then I know where the loonies are. :-)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. This decision could be very helpful to protesters in the future, I think. -nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. So are the people un-reccing this in favor of abridging free speech?

:shrug:

[Kurovski]

14. Look at post 12. It is mine

[leftstreet]

15. The case wasn't about regulating free speech

I didn't unRec, but the M$M really didn't report it properly.

It was a tort case between private parties and whether or not those parties could sue one another for damages.

[Kurovski]

18. The father made the point that Elizabeth Edwards' was protected

by having them protest a mile away, yet they were near enough to his sons service to be disruptive. He made it a matter of his religious rights being infringed upon. and they were. He was not allowed to give his son the religious ceremony of burial uninterrupted.

It was a bullshit cowardly ruling.

[leftstreet]

20. The court wasn't interested in right to privacy vs free speech at all

These fuckers love to hand down ANYTHING that restricts us proles from use of the judiciary

:grr:

[Kurovski]

23. And then there was the liberal line, too I guess.

Afraid someone might think that they're "against free speech"

Really, the only time to worry about free speech is not when a funeral is disrupted by dangerously mentally and emotionally damaged people, but in instances where the court thinks money is protected free speech :crazy: (equal protection, anyone?) or when the government is suppressing free speech.

[Kurovski]

21. Here is what one of Phelps; son says about the ruling:

He disagreed

http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/

[Duende azul]

22. Nope. Unrecced because of the crap

about Venezuela the OP managed to insert.


...and because of the case made in post # 12...

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. Sorry, I've been off the grid for a few days so this was one of the first comments I saw ...

about the ruling. Don't know the OP's history. I'm hit or miss around here. It was all I could do today to read the Toons. (One of my favorite bits). I'm pretty much a browse the Greatest Page DUer I'm afraid. Doesn't necessarily mean I get the greatest at DU of course.

[old mark]

11. K&R- You are correct. They are evil assholes, but they have a right to say

what they "think".

And so do we.

mark

[Kurovski]

12. Yeah, yeah, we get it already.

Fuck Fred Phelps up his ass with some implement with which he beat little children with: heated to 220 degrees. Fuck him in the morning, fuck him in the afternoon, and fuck him in the evening.

Don't forget the 3AM fucking. Set the alarm so as not to miss it. Under those circumstances may he live to be 105 years old.

God damn his sorry old ass.

UNRECOMMENDED because WE FUCKING GET IT. Stop making people have to feel the hurt this man creates in the world with these repetitive "free speech" posts that are starting to look like adventures in SADISM. I get it. You totally pwned us.

[Kurovski]

16. ****Here is my attempt at free speech, please UNRECOMMEND this thread******************

For the reasons listed above.

[leftstreet]

17. Why I oughta kick your

post up

The interesting thing is our Overlords have us debating this as a 'free speech' issue. It wasn't.

[Kurovski]

19. Heh.

You booger eater. I like you. I really like you.

EDIT: for :thumbsup:

[Volaris]

13. agreed, and the Genius of the First Amendment

as it applies to all the idiots in the world, is that, as long as the Idiots have access to a megaphone, the rest of us Villagers get to always know where they are, and what they are up to.=)

[InvisibleTouch]

24. Where is the line between free speech and hate speech?

Don't family members also have rights - the right to mourn in peace?

For all I care, the Westboro degenerates can stand around on a street corner somewhere, but should not be allowed in the proximity of funerals.