Supreme Court rules First Amendment protects church's right to picket funerals

[Skeletor]

Supreme Court rules First Amendment protects church's right to picket funerals

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 2, 2011; 11:52 AM

A nearly unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech about public issues and upheld the right of a fringe church to protest near military funerals.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church's picketing "is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible." But he said government "cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."

"As a nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," Roberts said.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter.

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote.

The case concerned Westboro's picketing at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, 20, who was killed in Iraq. The church - which is made up almost entirely of the family members of its founder, the Rev. Fred W. Phelps - picketed the 2006 funeral in Westminster, Md., carrying signs such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "America Is Doomed."

Margie Phelps, a lawyer and daughter of Phelps who argued the case at the court, struck a triumphant tone.

"Our reaction is thank God and praise his name," she said in a phone interview. "He has a message for this nation, and from the Pentagon on down, you're not going to be able to fight it."

The church contends military deaths are God's revenge for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. Matthew's father, Albert Snyder, sued.

Church members have said they have no sympathy for Snyder, and that continued after Wednesday's decision. Phelps thanked Snyder for filing the suit and "putting a megaphone to the mouth of this little church."


Asked whether the decision would change the church's tactics, Margie Phelps said: "We're going to picket more."

Snyder argued at trial that the Phelpses had invaded his privacy, caused emotional distress and violated his rights to free exercise of religion and peaceful assembly.

A Baltimore jury awarded Snyder more than $10 million, which was cut in half by the judge and then overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond. A three-judge panel said that although the rhetoric used was offensive, it was protected as speech concerning issues in the national debate.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030202548.html

[Soul Crusher]

Right decision - but its a sign of how far we have fallen that these things need to go to court in the first place.

[Kazan]

Right decision - but its a sign of how far we have fallen that these things need to go to court in the first place.

True, as much as I think Phelps(s) are a bunch of oxygen theives.

[Dos Equis]

I disagree with this.  What these people do is tantamount to domestic terrorism.  Let them do their protests, but make them pay if they injure someone.  Good for Alito for having the grapes to stand alone.    

[Purge_WTF]

  I reluctantly support the decision as a matter of free speech--just as I one day hope God himself visits the Westboro swine with a giant lightning bolt.

[Emmortal]

I disagree with this.  What these people do is tantamount to domestic terrorism.  Let them do their protests, but make them pay if they injure someone.  Good for Alito for having the grapes to stand alone.    

How many people have they injured in their protests?

[Fury]

How many people have they injured in their protests?

They've probably psychologically damaged quite a few people. They're fucking trash but better to ignore them than destroy the 1st amendment. That biker gang that goes to the funerals does a good job keeping them away from the families.

[Emmortal]

They've probably psychologically damaged quite a few people. They're fucking trash but better to ignore them than destroy the 1st amendment. That biker gang that goes to the funerals does a good job keeping them away from the families.

Yea, I was referring to physical injury.  But yea, as much as I detest these wastes of human flesh and no matter how much I want to see them all die a slow painful death, it would go against everything this country stands for (whatever that is) to rule against them in this case.  Just because none of us agree with what they say, they have a right to say it.

[tonymctones]

Yea, I was referring to physical injury.  But yea, as much as I detest these wastes of human flesh and no matter how much I want to see them all die a slow painful death, it would go against everything this country stands for (whatever that is) to rule against them in this case.  Just because none of us agree with what they say, they have a right to say it.

I agree with the decision as well but simply b/c it is legal doesnt mean they cant be sued in civil court for pain and suffering...

All they need to do is find the right venue/judge and they will be up shit creek hopefully.

sucks about they last guy who tried to sue though, anybody know if they are still making him pay their legal fees?

[Kazan]

. That biker gang that goes to the funerals does a good job keeping them away from the families.

You mean the Patriot Guard, they are not a biker gang

[Skip8282]

Good decision, horrible people.  On the good side though, it looks like they've pissed off some of the people from Anon and they may be getting their computers hacked regularly.

haha

[Dos Equis]

How many people have they injured in their protests?

Well we know of at least one (the guy who sued him and won). 

[The Showstoppa]

I don't get this decision.....so it's "ok" to show up at a private ceremony, disrupt that ceremony and prevent the mourners from excercising their freedom of religion?  I can understand if they hold some type of protest away from the funeral/church, but at the church?  I really do not see how that would be protected under the 1st amendment.  Truly sickening individuals.....

[Dos Equis]

I don't get this decision.....so it's "ok" to show up at a private ceremony, disrupt that ceremony and prevent the mourners from excercising their freedom of religion?  I can understand if they hold some type of protest away from the funeral/church, but at the church?  I really do not see how that would be protected under the 1st amendment.  Truly sickening individuals.....

I think they disrupted the funeral at the burial site?  And not all funerals or burials are religious in nature.  Regardless, this is terrible.  I would have no trouble protecting people grieving the loss of their loved ones from this kind of reprehensible conduct.  That's not what free speech is all about. 

[The Showstoppa]

I think they disrupted the funeral at the burial site?  And not all funerals or burials are religious in nature.  Regardless, this is terrible.  I would have no trouble protecting people grieving the loss of their loved ones from this kind of reprehensible conduct.  That's not what free speech is all about. 

I agree with you, I thought that I read that the guy suing them was partially basing the case on infringement of their freedom of religion, but I could be wrong.  To me, they are simply using the cloak of freedom of religion for themselves as a way to spread hate speech, which I always thought usually was not protected under the 1st amendment.  I can honestly say that if I was attending a funeral and these scumbags showed up, I would wade into them with an aluminum baseball bat and GLADLY be hauled off to jail. 

[tu_holmes]

They've probably psychologically damaged quite a few people. They're fucking trash but better to ignore them than destroy the 1st amendment. That biker gang that goes to the funerals does a good job keeping them away from the families.

This.

[240 is Back]

I disagree with this.  What these people do is tantamount to domestic terrorism.  Let them do their protests, but make them pay if they injure someone.  Good for Alito for having the grapes to stand alone.   

if they injure someone, send them to jail.

Hell, i think the police should stay home and let some vigilante group beat the shit out of the protesters.

But calling it "domestic terrorism" is a little whiny.  They're morons and they deserve an ass kicking... but lumping it in with some a-hole blowing himself up in crowded mall is a little silly.



Police look the other way all the time on shit.   This should be no different.  The police should go on lunch break then return to help the protesters out with their newly broken bones. 

[Dos Equis]

I agree with you, I thought that I read that the guy suing them was partially basing the case on infringement of their freedom of religion, but I could be wrong.  To me, they are simply using the cloak of freedom of religion for themselves as a way to spread hate speech, which I always thought usually was not protected under the 1st amendment.  I can honestly say that if I was attending a funeral and these scumbags showed up, I would wade into them with an aluminum baseball bat and GLADLY be hauled off to jail. 

It's probably going to take some violent act before something is done to prevent these "protests" from happening at funerals.  

I agree with you that certain categories of speech are not protected under the First Amendment, including "fighting words."  I really don't see a logical distinction between the fighting words exception and what these people do.  

[Dos Equis]

if they injure someone, send them to jail.

Hell, i think the police should stay home and let some vigilante group beat the shit out of the protesters.

But calling it "domestic terrorism" is a little whiny.  They're morons and they deserve an ass kicking... but lumping it in with some a-hole blowing himself up in crowded mall is a little silly.



Police look the other way all the time on shit.   This should be no different.  The police should go on lunch break then return to help the protesters out with their newly broken bones. 

Absurd, as usual.  Law enforcement should enforce the law.  Absolutely ridiculous.   

[240 is Back]

Absurd, as usual.  Law enforcement should enforce the law.  Absolutely ridiculous.   

Nah, sometimes they do look the other way.  The moment you give these assclowns the power of 'domestic terrorism", you gotta label a TON of things like that. 

That gives obama more power to deal with all this new domestic terrorism.

[The Showstoppa]

It's probably going to take some violent act before something is done to prevent these "protests" from happening at funerals.  

I agree with you that certain categories of speech are not protected under the First Amendment, including "fighting words."  I really don't see a logical distinction between the fighting words exception and what these people do.  

Absolutely correct.  If screaming "God kills fags" etc at a families funeral burying their 20yr old son... doesn't fall under inciting, I don't know what is. 

[Dos Equis]

Absolutely correct.  If screaming "God kills fags" etc at a families funeral burying their 20yr old son... doesn't fall under inciting, I don't know what is. 

Tell me about it.  Some of their work:

[240 is Back]

that little punk holding the sign needs to be ninja kicked while the cops are in the Taco bell drive-thru. 

Whining about it on message boards won't get this done, guys.  "We need to give the federal govt more power!" isn't the answer.  Try that shit at my mom or dad's funeral and you bet your pretty ass I'm macing him in an elevator a week later.  But I suppose you can ask obama to fight your battles for you...

[The Showstoppa]

that little punk holding the sign needs to be ninja kicked while the cops are in the Taco bell drive-thru. 

Whining about it on message boards won't get this done, guys.  "We need to give the federal govt more power!" isn't the answer.  Try that shit at my mom or dad's funeral and you bet your pretty ass I'm macing him in an elevator a week later.  But I suppose you can ask obama to fight your battles for you...

WTF tangent are you going off on?  Believe me, like I said, there would be no need if any govt presence if these shitbags EVER make the mistake to show up at a funeral I'm attending, but to not believe that private citizens conducting a private ceremony don't deserve protection under the law, which already occurs in many cases, doesn't apply here is utter nonsense.  Acting like people should just always take matters into their own hand and not involve authority is childish, pointless and no practical in the least.

[240 is Back]

Acting like people should just always take matters into their own hand and not involve authority is childish, pointless and no practical in the least.

at the same time, crying that the govt should classify this as DOMESTIC TERRORISM like beacn Bum did is also extreme.