‘God Hates Fags’ case gets Supreme Court review

[JackLuis]

After the Appeal, it goes to the Supreme Court.

"The US Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether vitriolic anti-gay protesters who picket the funerals of US soldiers are protected by free speech laws.

The emotionally-charged case was brought by the family of US Marine Matthew Snyder, who was killed in combat in Iraq in 2006.

His family organized a private Christian funeral for him in Maryland that attracted members of the radical Westboro Church led by Baptist preacher Fred Phelps."

This should really stress out the Roberts Court!

Is there a limit to the First Amendment?

What about protection from assholes?

Anyone want to bet? One way or the other?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

After the Appeal, it goes to the Supreme Court.

"The US Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether vitriolic anti-gay protesters who picket the funerals of US soldiers are protected by free speech laws.

The emotionally-charged case was brought by the family of US Marine Matthew Snyder, who was killed in combat in Iraq in 2006.

His family organized a private Christian funeral for him in Maryland that attracted members of the radical Westboro Church led by Baptist preacher Fred Phelps."

This should really stress out the Roberts Court!

Is there a limit to the First Amendment?

What about protection from assholes?

Anyone want to bet? One way or the other?

Just the Roberts Court? It should stress out every constitutional scholar on the continent! My personal opinion is that the Phelps assholes are actually breaking the First Amendment by attempting to establish a religion and prohibit the exercise thereof by anyone who disagrees with them. Admittedly they aren't in the government (thank God!) but I wonder how that would play out.

 

[Darkniciad]

Unfortunately, these degenerates are probably well within bounds, so far as free speech is concerned. Considering that they have lawyers in the little group of scum, they're probably well aware of what they need to do to avoid anything else that could be used to stop them, such as trespassing or disturbing the peace.

 

[JackLuis]

Where are the bikers when you need them?

 

[Boxlicker101]

There are limits to Freedom of Expression, including the famous yelling of "Fire" in a crowded theater and libel and slander. I can't help thinking that their goal is not to make a statement, but to cause distress in the persons they picket. As far as I can see, they are violating the rights of others, and this is not protected by the Constitution.

 

[JackLuis]

There are limits to Freedom of Expression, including the famous yelling of "Fire" in a crowded theater and libel and slander. I can't help thinking that their goal is not to make a statement, but to cause distress in the persons they picket. As far as I can see, they are violating the rights of others, and this is not protected by the Constitution.

SO if a group of bikers, restrained them, it would be legal?

How about if they beat the crap out of the assholes?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We have a similar problem here; a local black militant group hangs-out at the mall screaming at restaurant and movie patrons. The same group hangs-out at the parking garage, screaming at people.

But none of this is new. In his autobiography Patrick Cartwright details how Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists slaughtered each other during the 1800s in the rural MidWest, and everyone terrorized the Mormons.

 

[MzDeviancy]

Is there a limit to the First Amendment?

Legally, not so much, except as mentioned in certain cases generally involving public safety.

Morally, fuck yes there's a limit. I'm so sick of people abusing freedom of speech. It's funny how these people are able to quote the constitution like constitutional lawyers, but they have no understanding of the spirit in which the words were intended. Freedom of speech was intended to enable us to be open about our religious/political beliefs without being persecuted. It was not intended to allow this kind of revolting behaviour.

I'm not big on this idea that "the troops" are untouchable; I view the whole 'Support Our Troops' movement as a widespread attempt by one part of society to quell the legitimate objection of another part of society to a war and to the individuals (ie. the soldiers) who make that war possible. However, that being said, a funeral is not an appropriate place to stage a protest. Have some decency and let people mourn in peace.

It would be truly fantastic if some constitutional interpretation resulted out of this case preventing more behaviour like this. At least it might be some comfort to the mourners who were subjected to this shit.

 

[cloudy]

I'm not big on this idea that "the troops" are untouchable; I view the whole 'Support Our Troops' movement as a widespread attempt by one part of society to quell the legitimate objection of another part of society to a war and to the individuals (ie. the soldiers) who make that war possible. However, that being said, a funeral is not an appropriate place to stage a protest. Have some decency and let people mourn in peace.

You do realize, don't you, that thist has absolutely nothing to do with why the Westboro Baptists freaks were there?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Re: SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

The awful legacy of the Vietnam War is how Americans treated its boys in the military. After enough time passed Americans realized how they were brain-washed by the Left to abuse these boys, though many were forced into uniform by the draft.

I mean, how low is that! You force a kid into the army then shit on him cuz he's in the army. Most of us experienced the abuse.

About 25 years ago many Americans realized they acted like assholes during the 60s cuz they were duped by the Lefties. So now they go to the other extreme.

 

[Handley_Page]

Are there any statutes, National or otherwise about interrupting a 'private' function ?
Over here we have a thing called "conduct likely to cause a breech of the Peace." By the sound of it, you folks need that, too.

 

[Liar]

Goddammit. This only makes those snot stains think they're relevant. They don't deserve to be taken seriously.

(I'm talking about the Westboro Baptists, and not the Supreme Court, in case you wondered. )

 

[Bobby_3111]

The Westboro Church is full of blind freaks, they listen to no one except that idiot preacher of theirs. They ought to stay out of the cemetaries with their protests. Hell michael moore had some of them in a documentary of his, i forget it's name. And although i dont like the guy i still thought it was funny when he showed up with a bus full of gay dudes at their town, lol.

 

[rgraham666]

Considering that SCOTUS recently decided corporations are individuals and so have the right to free speech, which means that political campaigns will be flooded with corporate money even more than they are now, and they are discussing striking down any local or state law on firearms, I suspect the Westboro people will be allowed to stand at the graveside and shout their bile.

 

[JamesSD]

The Supreme Court will make as narrow and specific a ruling as possible on the issue. Probably something very specific relating to funerals. There is precedent for limiting free speech as long as it's a narrow restriction; the aforementioned safety reasons, and some examples of hate speech.

 

[xssve]

Considering that SCOTUS recently decided corporations are individuals and so have the right to free speech, which means that political campaigns will be flooded with corporate money even more than they are now, and they are discussing striking down any local or state law on firearms, I suspect the Westboro people will be allowed to stand at the graveside and shout their bile.

I hope so because otherwise, it would establish a precedent for censoring speech based on taste - we've already been engaged in a pitched battle on that subject w/regards to pornography, which many find equally "distasteful".

I'd watch this one carefully, regardless of how appalling you find it; it's essentially the same argument that justifies the display of Piss Christ, or the work of Robert Mapplethorpe, the only real difference being that those artists had the good taste not to exhibit their work at other peoples funerals.

If it does go against the Westboro mob, let us hope JamesSD is correct w/regard to a narrow ruling.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As I said earlier, The First Amendment is not absolute, and here is another exception that might fit, especially if the assholes were beaten to a pulp by an enraged mob: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

 

[Boxlicker101]

I hope so because otherwise, it would establish a precedent for censoring speech based on taste - we've already been engaged in a pitched battle on that subject w/regards to pornography, which many find equally "distasteful".

I'd watch this one carefully, regardless of how appalling you find it; it's essentially the same argument that justifies the display of Piss Christ, or the work of Robert Mapplethorpe, the only real difference being that those artists had the good taste not to exhibit their work at other peoples funerals.

If it does go against the Westboro mob, let us hope JamesSD is correct w/regard to a narrow ruling.

Those who were critical of the "works of art" you mentioned did so because the "artists" were paid for their work by the US government. I have no problem with people putting anything they want on display; I just don't want to have to pay for it.

 

[MzDeviancy]

You do realize, don't you, that thist has absolutely nothing to do with why the Westboro Baptists freaks were there?

Um yeah, I was making a point about using a funeral as a soapbox for your own personal beliefs.

EDITED TO ADD:

Okay, I went back and read my post and it does sound like I'm saying that the whackadoos were there to protest the war rather than gay soldiers. In my defense, it was late, I was tired, and it seemed like a very aptly drawn parallel in my head...

 

[Emperor_Nero]

Um yeah, I was making a point about using a funeral as a soapbox for your own personal beliefs.

EDITED TO ADD:

Okay, I went back and read my post and it does sound like I'm saying that the whackadoos were there to protest the war rather than gay soldiers. In my defense, it was late, I was tired, and it seemed like a very aptly drawn parallel in my head...

These wackos aren't even protesting gay soldiers ... their stance is that we are at war and our young men must die because, as a nation, the U.S. tolerates gays. They believe this is our punishment from God for allowing homosexuality to exist within our boundries.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Um yeah, I was making a point about using a funeral as a soapbox for your own personal beliefs.

EDITED TO ADD:

Okay, I went back and read my post and it does sound like I'm saying that the whackadoos were there to protest the war rather than gay soldiers. In my defense, it was late, I was tired, and it seemed like a very aptly drawn parallel in my head...

I don't know what the freakos think about the war. Their only objection seems to be that it is illegal to lynch people for being gay, and they are claiming that soldiers dying is God's punishment for it being illegal.

They're crazy; don't expect them to be logical.

 

[MzDeviancy]

These wackos aren't even protesting gay soldiers ... their stance is that we are at war and our young men must die because, as a nation, the U.S. tolerates gays. They believe this is our punishment from God for allowing homosexuality to exist within our boundries.

Yeah, I've seen some news reports with footage of their protests. Fun folk. What's really creepy is the teenagers they have amongst their ranks. Never too early to start spewing hatred and calling for the death of an entire group of people...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

But how do you get around the original problem: God hates fags? Can you imagine how fucking tough the math is! Shit the math is gotta be like the Obama Equations they use for healthcare reform.

 

[bronzeage]

The "God hates fags" group are protected under the "sticks and stones" clause of the Constitution.

It's either in the Constitution, or the Conduct Rules at my old kindergarten.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The "God hates fags" group are protected under the "sticks and stones" clause of the Constitution.

It's either in the Constitution, or the Conduct Rules at my old kindergarten.

It's not that simple, and there are some things that exceed the bounds. Picture this:

A good young man or woman has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, and hundreds of friends and relatives are grieving and burying the deceased. A bunch of lunatics are making a disturbance at the funeral, chanting how God killed the young person, and how they are glad He did, and it's the fault of the deceased, etc. The mourners turn on the lunatics and stomp the living shit out of them. If I happened to be among the mourners, I would be proud to lead the charge. If I were even a spectator, I would join in the beating.

I can't imagine any prosecutor in the land charging the mourners and, if anybody does, I can't imagine any jury convicting them, or saying anything but "Well done!" I don't know that SCOTUS would even get a chance to rule, because the accused people would be acquitted in a lower court.

In fact, if the lunatics included children, who were also beaten up, their parents would probably be convicted of child endangerment for putting them in such a situation.

If a civil suit resulted, with the lunatics claiming their civil rights were violated, I don't believe any jury would ever rule in their favor.