[valo403]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

It is coming.

A wounded veteran of Afghanistan was arrested in Wichita a couple of months ago for 'stalking' the Phelps' while they were here to spread their hate. What do you suppose he was going to do?

As for the decision, it is disgusting. The rights of Americans are guaranteed only to the point where they infringe on the rights of other Americans. I assume all the state laws that prohibited picketing within a certain distance of a funeral are abolished.

Wow, I'm actually stunned to see that from someone who typically has such reasoned posts. As I said earlier, freedom isn't something that only exists when we agree with what is being said or done. I for one would rather live in a country where the overarching concern is the upholding of freedom for everyone, not just the people I happen to agree with.

Btw, the opinion does not abolish any state laws, particularly of the type you're talking about. In fact it advocates for them.

Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the proper response to hurtful protests are general laws creating buffer zones around funerals and the like, rather than empowering of juries to punish unpopular speech.

Here's the direct quote from the opinion:

Westboro’s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government’s regulatory reach—it is “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions” that are consistent with the standards announced in this Court’s precedents. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984) . Maryland now has a law imposing restrictions on funeral picketing, Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. §10–205 (Lexis Supp. 2010), as do 43 other States and the Federal Government. See Brief for American Legion as Amicus Curiae 18–19, n. 2 (listing statutes). To the extent these laws are content neutral, they raise very different questions from the tort verdict at issue in this case. Maryland’s law, however, was not in effect at the time of the events at issue here, so we have no occasion to consider how it might apply to facts such as those before us, or whether it or other similar regulations are constitutional. 5

We have identified a few limited situations where the location of targeted picketing can be regulated under provisions that the Court has determined to be content neutral. In Frisby , for example, we upheld a ban on such picketing “before or about” a particular residence, 487 U. S., at 477. In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. , we approved an injunction requiring a buffer zone between protesters and an abortion clinic entrance. 512 U. S. 753, 768 (1994) . The facts here are obviously quite different, both with respect to the activity being regulated and the means of restricting those activities.

Another quote that does a good job of summing up my feelings on the issue:

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment , it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society 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) .

It seems that most people don't actually know what the opinion even says before passing their judgment, here's the full opinion if you'd like to find out http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZO.html