Supreme Court Says Westboro Nuts Can Picket Military Funerals

[BigBrodieFan]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....baptist-church

Of the decision, Fox News wrote, “The case presented the justices with a high-profile question about the breadth of First Amendment speech and assembly protections. A majority of justices ruled that these fundamental rights outweigh the concerns of grieving family members who would rather not deal with the obnoxious protesters from the Kansas Church.”

I find this sickening. I've been to two events in Kansas where Phelps and his nutjob protesters have 'picketed.' One was a military funeral and people simply blocked the idiots from the grieving family of a 20 year old soldier who died in Afghanistan. These people are animals.

[burn_this_city]

I still can't believe no one has run them down or shot a couple.

[Caged Great]

As disgusting as their message is, they have the right to spew their garbage.

[Montana Moe]

They are disgusting, but it is absolutely the right decision.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

As disgusting as their message is, they have the right to spew their garbage.

Pretty much. And thats okay, people just have to ignore them and not incite them.

[starseed]

I believe they should have every right to tell me that I am going to hell, but they should not be able to prevent me from getting married to the man I love, nor should they be allowed to prevent me from adopting a child.

[transplant99]

There is no way they could stop these morons from assembling though...its pretty clear in the consitution that what they do is protected.

if they were interupting commerce or causing the stoppage of traffic, something along those lines, they would be rounded up and jailed, but they dont so its not going to happen.

the price of free assembly is that it applies to all equally...even the evil-spirited bigots that this group is.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

There is no way they could stop these morons from assembling though...its pretty clear in the consitution that what they do is protected.

if they were interupting commerce or causing the stoppage of traffic, something along those lines, they would be rounded up and jailed, but they dont so its not going to happen.

the price of free assembly is that it applies to all equally...even the evil-spirited bigots that this group is.

I understand. It's just that their message is so hateful and their is profanity on their signs. I think at least those should be limited or not allowed. I just find it really sad that people can behave in such a hateful, horrible manor. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I lost my son and I had to put up with that crap on the day of his funeral.

[mykalberta]

No matter the feelings, its crystal clear 1st amendment issue. Everyone has the right to stand on the side of the road and spew religious gospel, or gay rights, or environmental protection, etc etc etc. They arent blocking people from the funeral and they arent close enough to those at the funderal could hear them.

In the US you live with the Constitution, you die with the Constitution. For everyone who hates this decision there are others who both love and hate the 2nd amendment.

[Delthefunky]

I think phelps has a few things hiding in the closet. Wouldn't be surprised if he turned up dead through auto-erotic asphyxiation

[CaptainCrunch]

The court can't rule on bad taste, if they did Lady Gaga would be going to prison.

But the constitution protects the freedom of expression, free speech and the right of assembly, so what Westboro is doing is unfortunately protective.

Is their speech hateful? Absolutely, however they can protect themselves by saying the statement "God hates fags" for example is a religious belief and not hate speak.

There's no way that you're going to make them go away, especially considering that most of the family members are lawyers.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

I think phelps has a few things hiding in the closet. Wouldn't be surprised if he turned up dead through auto-erotic asphyxiation

Well we know that he was at least at one time a drug addict, it wouldn't surpise me if he was doing immediate family members since they are a closed church.

Why would he need to do himself when he can do one of his sons wives?

Or one of his daughters?

[WilsonFourTwo]

The soldiers die to protect the very freedom that allows the picketers.

I dunno.....I'd almost be kind of proud to have people picket my arrival in a coffin. It's a living, breathing example of what I died for and is therefore something I'd be proud of and OK with (Even if I find it distasteful).

EDIT: Someone should show this news story to Alanis Morissette. It's an actual example of irony.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I understand. It's just that their message is so hateful and their is profanity on their signs. I think at least those should be limited or not allowed. I just find it really sad that people can behave in such a hateful, horrible manor. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I lost my son and I had to put up with that crap on the day of his funeral.

Then where does it stop? I don't like the mesage either, but I will certainly defend their right to free expression.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

I think phelps has a few things hiding in the closet. Wouldn't be surprised if he turned up dead through auto-erotic asphyxiation

Or found with a broken neck in a bathroom due to autofellatio.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Then where does it stop? I don't like the mesage either, but I will certainly defend their right to free expression.

I don't think that 'God Hates Fags' should be allowed with the little picture of the stick figures 'doing it' from behind. I think that's inappropriate and falls under the exception of obscenity.

Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

They have the right to assemble peacefully and say what they want, but if they have the right to have a sign like that, I have a right to a sign like this:

NSFW!

[Clever_Iggy]

If Justice Scalia doesn't like it, I don't like it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I don't think that 'God Hates Fags' should be allowed with the little picture of the stick figures 'doing it' from behind. I think that's inappropriate and falls under the exception of obscenity.



They have the right to assemble peacefully and say what they want, but if they have the right to have a sign like that, I have a right to a sign like this:

NSFW!

And you have that right.

And no, it doesn't fall under the exception for obscenity.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by valo403

And you have that right.

And no, it doesn't fall under the exception for obscenity.

Swearing usually falls under the category of unprotected speech. It's a very grey area.

Another area is

Language that incites people to violence or illegal activity which is the reason why people who are against Phelps' rights want him banned. I know it would incite me to be violent if he was picketing my child's military funeral.

I was in the military. I wouldn't want him picketing my funeral because I know how much it would upset my parents and friends.

I know he has the 'right.' It just sickens me.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Swearing usually falls under the category of unprotected speech. It's a very grey area.

Another area is

Language that incites people to violence or illegal activity which is the reason why people who are against Phelps' rights want him banned. I know it would incite me to be violent if he was picketing my child's military funeral.

I was in the military. I wouldn't want him picketing my funeral because I know how much it would upset my parents and friends.

I know he has the 'right.' It just sickens me.

Well it comes down to making a decision on how you want rights to be granted. Are they only granted when its decided that we agree with what's being said or that it's pleasant to hear, or are they granted universally? The SCOTUS has, and continues to do, a pretty impressive job of protecting rights even where the end result is unpopular. That's the price of living in a nation where freedom is so highly valued.