Supreme Court to weigh in on free speech during funerals.

[Cry Havoc]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06/washington.free.speech.trial/index.html?hpt=T1

(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a legal battle that pits the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators.

In 2006, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested 300 feet from a funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Among the teachings of the Topeka, Kansas-based fundamentalist church founded by pastor Fred Phelps is the belief that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is God's punishment for "the sin of homosexuality."

Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, said his son was not gay and the protesters should not have been at the funeral.

"I was just shocked that any individual could do this to another human being," Snyder told CNN. "I mean, it was inhuman."

Snyder's family sued the church in 2007, alleging invasion of privacy, international infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were later reduced to $5 million.

The church appealed the case in 2008 to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's allegations that its First Amendment rights were violated.

In a legal brief filed with the Supreme Court, church members claim it is their right to protest at certain events, including funerals, to promote their religious message: "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him."

Church members have participated in hundreds of other protests across the country. They also picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepherd, the victim of an anti-gay beating and one of those whom the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was named.

The justices will be asked to look at how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.

The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the matter for several months.

----

Why can't you just arrest these people for harassment and/or disturbance of the peace? We don't need to repeal free speech to have a reason to put these douchebags in prison.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06/washington.free.speech.trial/index.html?hpt=T1

(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a legal battle that pits the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators.

In 2006, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested 300 feet from a funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Among the teachings of the Topeka, Kansas-based fundamentalist church founded by pastor Fred Phelps is the belief that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is God's punishment for "the sin of homosexuality."

Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, said his son was not gay and the protesters should not have been at the funeral.

"I was just shocked that any individual could do this to another human being," Snyder told CNN. "I mean, it was inhuman."

Snyder's family sued the church in 2007, alleging invasion of privacy, international infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were later reduced to $5 million.

The church appealed the case in 2008 to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's allegations that its First Amendment rights were violated.

In a legal brief filed with the Supreme Court, church members claim it is their right to protest at certain events, including funerals, to promote their religious message: "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him."

Church members have participated in hundreds of other protests across the country. They also picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepherd, the victim of an anti-gay beating and one of those whom the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was named.

The justices will be asked to look at how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.

The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the matter for several months.

----

Why can't you just arrest these people for harassment and/or disturbance of the peace? We don't need to repeal free speech to have a reason to put these douchebags in prison.

I could certainly see a case for harassment...funny it hasn't been employed as a defense much that I can see. Wonder if there's an issue with that particular charge?
BTW, I would hope the SC says, "Sorry, it's protected speech....and yes, these people are fuckmonkeys."

[Drachen]

The point being argued on the westboro side is that it is protected because while they protest funerals, they have all of their permits, stay in the boundries which they are licensed to stay in, and its not defamation because they dont actually attack individuals (i.e. "God is punishing the military because of fags, Soldiers are going to hell because of gays" as opposed to "YOUR son is in hell because of gays"). Experts are saying that because of this it is likely they get away with it. Oh and because everything they do is on the up and up legally, harrassment doesn't come into it.

I think there are two ways to handle this:
1. curtail our freedom of speech (NO NO NO NO NO)
2. Vigilante Justice.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The point being argued on the westboro side is that it is protected because while they protest funerals, they have all of their permits, stay in the boundries which they are licensed to stay in, and its not defamation because they dont actually attack individuals (i.e. "God is punishing the military because of fags, Soldiers are going to hell because of gays" as opposed to "YOUR son is in hell because of gays"). Experts are saying that because of this it is likely they get away with it. Oh and because everything they do is on the up and up legally, harrassment doesn't come into it.

I think there are two ways to handle this:
1. curtail our freedom of speech (NO NO NO NO NO)
2. Vigilante Justice.

Yeah, I think the SC should side with Westboro on this one. With that being said, it is a complete dishonor to those who have paid the ultimate price to have this going on during their funerals.

[Cry Havoc]

2. Vigilante Justice.

They have made a living off of angry family members assaulting them.

I understand that freedom of speech needs to be protected, but I hate the fact that these people can sue individuals and get away with it when they're punched for having those signs at a funeral. It's a testament to the state of the courts in this country that they get money awarded to them on a regular basis for what amounts to be the lowest form of trolling on the planet.

[Drachen]

They have made a living off of angry family members assaulting them.

I understand that freedom of speech needs to be protected, but I hate the fact that these people can sue individuals and get away with it when they're punched for having those signs at a funeral. It's a testament to the state of the courts in this country that they get money awarded to them on a regular basis for what amounts to be the lowest form of trolling on the planet.

Punching isn't Vigilante Justice.... Just make sure there is no one to sue you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I wonder how the family memebrs of the westboro nuts would feel if people pickted their loved one's funerals with signs that said : "you will be sodomized in hell", or "f*gs will decide your eternal fate", "God hates people who hate"..etc..

[Cry Havoc]

Punching isn't Vigilante Justice.... Just make sure there is no one to sue you.

Someone needs to set their signs on fire. Then they'd just be a bunch of people standing around at a funeral with sticks.

[boutons_deux]

The Constitution is kinda hard to live by, huh? :lol

True democracy is

Of course, tea baggers, "Christian" Taleban, libertarians, Repugs cherry pick it, and benefit from "Continuous Revelation" channeled straight the Founder's ghosts, to interpret it as they see fit, just like Bible-thumpers think the Bible means whatever the fuck they want it to mean.

What happened to Macho Man's:

"I disagree with what you say, but I'll die fighting for your right to say it" ?

[coyotes_geek]

BTW, I would hope the SC says, "Sorry, it's protected speech....and yes, these people are fuckmonkeys."

Pretty much where I come out on this. Fucktards have freedoms too.

[Wild Cobra]

I think the court will rule that a funeral is a private event protected by laws of privacy, barring the group from protesting.

[Drachen]

The Constitution is kinda hard to live by, huh? :lol

True democracy is

Of course, tea baggers, "Christian" Taleban, libertarians, Repugs cherry pick it, and benefit from "Continuous Revelation" channeled straight the Founder's ghosts, to interpret it as they see fit, just like Bible-thumpers think the Bible means whatever the fuck they want it to mean.

What happened to Macho Man's:

"I disagree with what you say, but I'll die fighting for your right to say it" ?


How does this even have anything to do with the conversation. Try not to politicize what is almost a non political issue. These guys are ALMOST Universally hated.

[Drachen]

I think the court will rule that a funeral is a private event protected by laws of privacy, barring the group from protesting.


They arent at the funeral, they are near the funeral, off of the property with a permit to be there.

[George Gervin's Afro]

They arent at the funeral, they are near the funeral, off of the property with a permit to be there.

This is the key, they are across the street most of the time..

[Cry Havoc]

True democracy

:lmao

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/6/129099886145036139.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

This is the key, they are across the street most of the time..
Yes, but they are disturbing the peace of the funeral.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Cry Havoc]

Yes, but they are disturbing the peace of the funeral.

It is also obvious to ANYONE with a brain that Westboro is just there to incite anger in people who are grieving so they can sue them for thousands of dollars. If they didn't sue people for hitting them, I would be a lot more tolerant of their presence at a funeral, but they exist solely to cause strife and discord so that they can line their pockets. It's pathetic behavior and shouldn't be protected just because they aren't expressly breaking any laws. Their assault on the funeral is every bit as damaging as the physical response they receive.

I wish our court system were intelligent enough to have provisions to curtail this behavior, instead of rewarding it with settlements.

[Wild Cobra]

It is also obvious to ANYONE with a brain that Westboro is just there to incite anger in people who are grieving so they can sue them for thousands of dollars. If they didn't sue people for hitting them, I would be a lot more tolerant of their presence at a funeral, but they exist solely to cause strife and discord so that they can line their pockets. It's pathetic behavior and shouldn't be protected just because they aren't expressly breaking any laws. Their assault on the funeral is every bit as damaging as the physical response they receive.

I wish our court system were intelligent enough to have provisions to curtail this behavior, instead of rewarding it with settlements.
Agreed. You could say they are inciting violence.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lmao

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/6/129099886145036139.jpg

Love that movie.:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

How does this even have anything to do with the conversation. Try not to politicize what is almost a non political issue. These guys are ALMOST Universally hated.

One trick pony.

[Parker2112]

Democracy and free speech have limits. Just try and go picket Chinese Imports on Wal-Mart property.

There is no reason the permit process needs to accomodate picketing funerals. A safe zone in the permitting process is in order here.

Picketing post-mortem doesnt preserve our fundamental liberties. It doesnt preserve free speech. It preserves the ability for families of dead gay people to be subjected to harrasment.

There are tons of arguments carrying legal weight to shield greiving families from inflamatory fringe-religious groups like this.

If we dont allow libel or slander, which are simply public statements, why would we allow the desecration of such a solemn ceremony as a family funeral?

[Wild Cobra]

Love that movie.:toast
I didn't think about the pic till you said that.

What movie is it? I forget, but want to see it again.

Wonder if Netflix on demand has it...

[TeyshaBlue]

I didn't think about the pic till you said that.

What movie is it? I forget, but want to see it again.

Wonder if Netflix on demand has it...

The Princess Bride.

[Cry Havoc]

There are tons of arguments carrying legal weight to shield greiving families from inflamatory fringe-religious groups like this.

If that's the case, why haven't the courts put a stop to it?

[Wild Cobra]

The Princess Bride.
Thanx

[FromWayDowntown]

Democracy and free speech have limits. Just try and go picket Chinese Imports on Wal-Mart property.

A Wal-Mart parking lot is not governmental property; it's private property and people who own property can limit the speech of others on that property. If I went into your home, you could most assuredly make me leave if you didn't like the things that I said. I don't have any First Amendment rights in your home because the First Amendment applies only to governmental action. Your home is really no different than Wal-Mart's parking lot in that sense and if Wal-mart doesn't like what you're saying, it can require you to leave its property.

[Wild Cobra]

Democracy and free speech have limits. Just try and go picket Chinese Imports on Wal-Mart property.

Who would be dumb enough to do that? Walmart sells mostly the same products as other stores, and i have never seen a store that doesn't sell Chinese products.

Have to be pretty dumb to do that.

[Spurminator]

The best thing that can be done is quit giving these fucktards attention.

But perhaps another option is if a more powerful group could step in and rent out all of the public space near these funerals so they can prevent these people from gathering nearby.

[FromWayDowntown]

The best thing that can be done is quit giving these fucktards attention.

But perhaps another option is if a more powerful group could step in and rent out all of the public space near these funerals so they can prevent these people from gathering nearby.

That, or if that weren't possible, stage a similar gathering in close proximity and simply outshout them.

I'd agree that your solution would be preferable.

[Spurminator]

Does Westboro just show up for these things or do they have to get permits?

Somebody has to know in advance that this is happening. There should be options at that somebody's disposal to circumvent them.

[clambake]

something should be said for the people that allow them to rent the space.

(if in fact the land/lands are privately owned.)

[Drachen]

That, or if that weren't possible, stage a similar gathering in close proximity and simply outshout them.

I'd agree that your solution would be preferable.

There is, they are a biker gang called the patriot guard riders.

[Drachen]

something should be said for the people that allow them to rent the space.

(if in fact the land/lands are privately owned.)

I can't speak for all cases, but for all of the cases I have read, it is all public property. Fred Phelps used to be a Civil Rights lawyer who was well known for being the white guy who took all of the black people's cases. He was really hated for that in the south. My point in bringing this up is he knows, legally, what he is doing. His daughter is also a lawyer and they are very meticulous in their process.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't speak for all cases, but for all of the cases I have read, it is all public property. Fred Phelps used to be a Civil Rights lawyer who was well known for being the white guy who took all of the black people's cases. He was really hated for that in the south. My point in bringing this up is he knows, legally, what he is doing. His daughter is also a lawyer and they are very meticulous in their process.
Which makes them even more slimy. To use the law, to cause pain and suffering of others...

[LnGrrrR]

Pretty much where I come out on this. Fucktards have freedoms too.

+1, unfortunately

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, but they are disturbing the peace of the funeral.

Eh, they're far enough away legally that they're not necessarily "disturbing" the funeral. It becomes a battle of two different freedoms; I'd agree freedom of speech wins out. The people aren't forcibly disturbing the assembly, after all.

[jack sommerset]

To think the father has to pay these 'fucktards" is disturbing.

[Parker2112]

If that's the case, why haven't the courts put a stop to it?

Courts dont control the permit process. They sit in after the fact, considering damages in torts and infringement of civil rights, as they did here, but I would be suprised if the permitting allowances weren't already adjusted.

[Parker2112]

A Wal-Mart parking lot is not governmental property; it's private property and people who own property can limit the speech of others on that property. If I went into your home, you could most assuredly make me leave if you didn't like the things that I said. I don't have any First Amendment rights in your home because the First Amendment applies only to governmental action. Your home is really no different than Wal-Mart's parking lot in that sense and if Wal-mart doesn't like what you're saying, it can require you to leave its property.

I know this...this is one of the limits on free speech. It only applies on govt property, and the protections only bind govt actors. Thats my point...free speech isnt all-encompassing.

[Parker2112]

Does Westboro just show up for these things or do they have to get permits?

Somebody has to know in advance that this is happening. There should be options at that somebody's disposal to circumvent them.

The permitting is where the limits have to be laid.

[Wild Cobra]

I know this...this is one of the limits on free speech. It only applies on govt property, and the protections only bind govt actors. Thats my point...free speech isnt all-encompassing.
Until it is at the expense of another citizen.

[LnGrrrR]

Until it is at the expense of another citizen.

Right, but within limits. After all, if I say that your words prevent my ability to peacefully assemble on this message board with other friends, you'd laugh me off, and rightfully so.

If I say that you being a conservative in Oregon affects my ability to peacefully assemble and get drinks, that'd be laughable as well.

So obviously, there's a distance factor. Usually, it's written into law as a certain distance away, because it's hard to put things like, "Far enough away not to be heard" into law.

As well, you're also interrupting the freedom of speech of the protestors. What good is freedom of speech if the people you wish to direct it to are out of earshot? It's the same problem I have with "Free speech zones" at rallies. Kinda defeats the purpose of protecting freedom of speech.

[Parker2112]

Eh, they're far enough away legally that they're not necessarily "disturbing" the funeral. It becomes a battle of two different freedoms; I'd agree freedom of speech wins out. The people aren't forcibly disturbing the assembly, after all.

Its not freedom of speech or freedom to assemble in grieving...its about balancing those competing interests.

The interests of the grieving family can be held so heavy as to outweigh free speech, and that determination can be implemented through the permit process, to keep picketers a far distance away from the gravesite. This can be done in the interests of: preserving the sanctity of the funeral, avoiding having grieving family, who are already under severe stress from being confronted by people protesting their own family members lifestyle, preserving the public peace, preventing assaults, prevent severe emotional distress, etc.

[Parker2112]

Until it is at the expense of another citizen.

what-huh?

[Wild Cobra]

what-huh?

Yep... That wasn't very comprehensive. Ignore it.

[LnGrrrR]

Its not freedom of speech or freedom to assemble in grieving...its about balancing those competing interests.

Pssst I already said that. :)

[Parker2112]

What good is freedom of speech if the people you wish to direct it to are out of earshot?

actually this favors the family.

Let the protesters spread their message, but there is no reason those views need to be thrust upon the grieving family. They arent going to be receptive to the protest, the protest is not aimed at them, other than to punish them for being related to a gay family member, the message doesnt reach the public at all.

Let them carry their message to a place where people might hear it who wouldnt be harmed by it. The general public.

I say within sight or sound of the procession and service should be barred from getting a permit.

[Parker2112]

It becomes a battle of two different freedoms; I'd agree freedom of speech wins out.


I was referring to this.

[Drachen]

actually this favors the family.

Let the protesters spread their message, but there is no reason those views need to be thrust upon the grieving family. They arent going to be receptive to the protest, the protest is not aimed at them, other than to punish them for being related to a gay family member, the message doesnt reach the public at all.

Let them carry their message to a place where people might hear it who wouldnt be harmed by it. The general public.

I say within sight or sound of the procession and service should be barred from getting a permit.


I think it was you that said this before, but they don't protest gay people much anymore. This guy wasn't gay. Their message is "everything bad that happens in this country is because we aren't eradicating gay people. Soldiers are killed by God because of us allowing gay people to live in this country. Additionally, because we aren't actively rooting out and getting rid of the gays, everyone in this country, when they die, are going straight to hell"

[Parker2112]

I think it was you that said this before, but they don't protest gay people much anymore. This guy wasn't gay. Their message is "everything bad that happens in this country is because we aren't eradicating gay people. Soldiers are killed by God because of us allowing gay people to live in this country. Additionally, because we aren't actively rooting out and getting rid of the gays, everyone in this country, when they die, are going straight to hell"

I see now...my bad. I still say just by showing up with signs regarding gay lifestyle, the group implies that the deceased was gay and they are picketing him or her as the casket is lowered into the ground. Dispicable (not being gay, or accusations of such, but protesting at another family's service). Even if, as here, that isnt the case.

[Crookshanks]

As much as I despise what these people do, I hope the Supreme Court sides with them. If the court rules against them, then that's a slippery slope to what other speech gets banned.

[Wild Cobra]

As much as I despise what these people do, I hope the Supreme Court sides with them. If the court rules against them, then that's a slippery slope to what other speech gets banned.
It really depends on the line they set.

In this case, a funeral is a solemn event, and normally private. The first amendment does use the word "peaceable" in it. there is no peace in yelling and screaming being directed to the people participating in a solemn event. There is no doubt they are the target of that hate speech.

[jack sommerset]

As much as I despise what these people do, I hope the Supreme Court sides with them. If the court rules against them, then that's a slippery slope to what other speech gets banned.

Protesting at a funeral is not a slippery slope. It's fucking disgraceful and disgusting. Supreme court should tell them that, take back the fine the father has to pay them and make a freaken law that specifically tells the idiots of the world not to protest at a goddamn funeral.

[MannyIsGod]

As much as I despise what these people do, I hope the Supreme Court sides with them. If the court rules against them, then that's a slippery slope to what other speech gets banned.

For the first time in history I completely agree with you. Living in a free society means you let people like this do this even if you find it revolting.

[ploto]

Agreed. You could say they are inciting violence.

IIRC, Gregory vs. Chicago basically said that protestors who are acting within their rights are not responsible for the reactions of the bystanders.

[Cry Havoc]

IIRC, Gregory vs. Chicago basically said that protestors who are acting within their rights are not responsible for the reactions of the bystanders.

That is almost certainly geared toward government or business. Surely picketing a private funeral and a single individual can be differentiated here.

[MannyIsGod]

Uh, why? All it takes to shut down free speech is people who can't control themselves? Sorry, I'm not buying that.

[Cry Havoc]

Uh, why? All it takes to shut down free speech is people who can't control themselves? Sorry, I'm not buying that.

If I walk up to a black person and start throwing the N word repeatedly his way, can I successfully sue him when he hits me? No, I cannot, because most courts are going to take my words as hate speech and clearly provocative. How is this any different? Is free speech dead because I can't shout out ethnic slurs at my leisure?

[MannyIsGod]

Key phrase - Walk up to.

[Cry Havoc]

Key phrase - Walk up to.

I'll make sure to drop the N bomb from a block away and hold a sign up about bringing back slavery from a comfortable, legal distance if I ever need to denigrate someone in the future, then. :lol

[sabar]

The law is useless when it becomes codified and enforced in a black and white manner. It hurts people just as much a a slippery slope does. If only people could act on common sense.

The utilitarian solution is vigilante justice for Phelps and his insane daughter. I imagine the net gain of good in the world would outweigh two deaths a thousand-fold.

[ploto]

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices expressed empathy Wednesday for a father whose Marine Corps son was killed in Iraq and whose funeral was protested by fundamentalist pastor Fred Phelps and his anti-gay followers.

"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

Yet the scope of the justices' questions during the hour-long session revealed the difficulty of the case and the reality that the court's previous rulings on free speech make it hard for individuals to claim they have been harmed by even horrific statements regarding public issues.

Despite their sympathy for the bereaved father, the justices, including Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote, clearly struggled with how to avoid a decision that encroaches on valid, although hateful, protest messages.

Justice Elena Kagan referred to the demonstrators as "taking advantage of a private funeral to express their views," yet noted they apparently adhered to ordinances about keeping their distance from the church. Ginsburg's questions suggested that state and local laws about where protesters may gather might sufficiently protect the sanctity of funerals.

As the justices heard arguments in the overflowing courtroom, the drama continued outside as Phelps' followers, who regularly travel the country to demonstrate at military funerals, protested in front of the marble-columned building.

Wednesday's case arose after Matthew Snyder, a Marine Corps lance corporal, was killed in Iraq in 2006. Fred Phelps and members of the Westboro Baptist Church — who comb media reports nationwide for news of military funerals — saw that Matthew would be memorialized in Westminster, Md. They protested near the Catholic church with signs that read, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Fag Troops" and "Pope in Hell."...

Justice Stephen Breyer drew out from Summers that Snyder had not seen the offensive signs until after the funeral on a television report...

Free speech groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say Phelps' horrific message is exactly the kind of unpopular, offensive speech the First Amendment was intended to protect...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-10-06-supreme-court-snyder-phelps_N.htm

It is interesting that the father did not see the signs at the funeral, but only later on TV. It does lead me to believe that they stayed the required distance away from the funeral and maybe did not actually "disturb" it in the manner in which it has been portrayed.

[Winehole23]

^^^solid take

[boutons_deux]

Free speech?

How about compelled speech or jail time?

http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/550/assets/99XF_Lampley.jpg


"A Mississippi judge ordered an attorney to spend several hours in jail Wednesday after the attorney chose not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in court"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/miss-judge-jails-reciting-plede/

[Winehole23]

There's a first amendment issue in both to be sure, but the similarities pretty much stop there. It's not a very good analogy, b_d.

[boutons_deux]

Here's the MIC intimidating, criminalzing anti-MIC dissenters, as Breyer said, criminalizing political speech

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148428

[Drachen]

That is almost certainly geared toward government or business. Surely picketing a private funeral and a single individual can be differentiated here.

... Aye, but there's the rub. They aren't picketing a single individual. They are picketing the entire country, and they are doing it from public property which just happens to be adjacent to a cemetary where a funeral is happening. Remember, these guys are lawyers, and are very careful not make it a personal attack.

[Winehole23]

With progressive dissent, censored from corporate media, increasingly treated like a crime, it’s time to ask: what is being protected?Obama's FBI is persecuting it. Who's antiwar guy, again?

[Drachen]

If I walk up to a black person and start throwing the N word repeatedly his way, can I successfully sue him when he hits me? No, I cannot, because most courts are going to take my words as hate speech and clearly provocative. How is this any different? Is free speech dead because I can't shout out ethnic slurs at my leisure?

You are aware that KKK members and neo-nazis have rallies and protests, generally right across from counter-protests organized by African American groups. Ethnic slurs are tossed back and forth, however the KKK guy could sue anyone who crosses the line (physical line, not metaphorical) and punches him.

[Drachen]

Here's the MIC intimidating, criminalzing anti-MIC dissenters, as Breyer said, criminalizing political speech

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148428

(jaw drops further than it has ever dropped before). I honestly don't know how to respond to this other than to say that you are despicable. I really hope I am misinterpreting the point of your post.

[boutons_deux]

The FBI, as MIC enforcer, doesn't care if they don't get a conviction of dissenters on trumped up charges of material aid to terrorists. All they need is an example of how they can destroy lives and tear up homes with impunity.

[Drachen]

Ok, I am calming down a little bit. I thought you were replying to the thread. Your programming must have read the word "military" and thought that this was a thread about the military.

[Spurminator]

It is interesting that the father did not see the signs at the funeral, but only later on TV. It does lead me to believe that they stayed the required distance away from the funeral and maybe did not actually "disturb" it in the manner in which it has been portrayed.

Interesting. Perhaps he should have sued the networks covering the protest?

[scott]

Seems like this is a problem with an easy legislative remedy. Governing bodies, most likely state or local, need to establish code or ordinance setting a further legal distance from funerals where protests can take place. Make it 2500 hundred feet from the property line from the premise the funeral is taking place. At a half mile away, no one should be disturbed and these clowns will just look like a bunch of random morons protesting nothing.

[Drachen]

Seems like this is a problem with an easy legislative remedy. Governing bodies, most likely state or local, need to establish code or ordinance setting a further legal distance from funerals where protests can take place. Make it 2500 hundred feet from the property line from the premise the funeral is taking place. At a half mile away, no one should be disturbed and these clowns will just look like a bunch of random morons protesting nothing.

As it turns out, it seems the ordinances already do this, if you look a few posts up, the dad admitted to not knowing they were there until after the funeral, when he saw it on the news.

These are horrible people, but they will almost certainly win the SC judgement. I just hope that the SC doesn't uphold the fines to the dad.

[boutons_deux]

These kinds "you can dissent from a half-mile away" totally renders dissent ineffective, as was seen in anti-war protesters, at the tiny number of dubya's public appearances, being restricted to a tiny patch of fenced in property 100s of yards away.

[FromWayDowntown]

There's a first amendment issue in both to be sure, but the similarities pretty much stop there. It's not a very good analogy, b_d.

I'm not even sure I'd characterize that as an issue. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette makes it constitutionally impermissible (via the Free Speech Clause) for the State to compel anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance -- if it can't be done in public schools, I don't think it can be done in a state courtroom. While the recent Newdow decision functionally rejected the argument that the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause, Barnette remains the law of the land -- and rightfully so, I think -- in terms of compulsory flag salutes and recitations of the Pledge.

As an aside, Justice Jackson's majority opinion in Barnette also happens to include two of my favorite legal statements about constructions of the First Amendment.

Speaking to the non-majoritarian structure of the Bill of Rights, Justice Jackson observed:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

and he also recognized that:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

[Spurminator]

If news cameras are going to continue to flock to these assholes, there's not really ANY distance they can set up from a funeral and not be some kind of disturbance.

There's no reason every protest they put on should be on television. We don't do news stories on every website that's set up with inflammatory and provocative views on homosexuality and soldiers, so why are these idiots given air time?

[Parker2112]

IIRC, Gregory vs. Chicago basically said that protestors who are acting within their rights are not responsible for the reactions of the bystanders.

And you dont think that decision is distinguishable, where we are talking about the reactions of [grieving families vs normal bystanders]?

I think it most definitely is.

If the court cant see fit to shelter families in mourning from picketers, I'd say the whole thing is going to hell in a handbasket. Those protections are fundamental to protecting society IMO. If we cant grieve in peace, then the 1st amendment freedoms can definitely be said to have overrun those fundamental rights of other citizens.

[Parker2112]

These kinds "you can dissent from a half-mile away" totally renders dissent ineffective, as was seen in anti-war protesters, at the tiny number of dubya's public appearances, being restricted to a tiny patch of fenced in property 100s of yards away.

I dont think they are dissenting the funeral. I dont think their presence at the funeral is critical to their message.

[Blake]

And you dont think that decision is distinguishable, where we are talking about the reactions of [grieving families vs normal bystanders]?

I think it most definitely is.

If the court cant see fit to shelter families in mourning from picketers, I'd say the whole thing is going to hell in a handbasket. Those protections are fundamental to protecting society IMO. If we cant grieve in peace, then the 1st amendment freedoms can definitely be said to have overrun those fundamental rights of other citizens.

It's not up to the court to shelter families in mourning from picketers.

If you are that upset about it, you should write your lawmakers and petition them to make tough laws regarding picketing within X amount of a funeral home.

[Spurminator]

Their presence near the funeral is critical to creating the kind of shock value that gets them national buzz.

[Parker2112]

It's not up to the court to shelter families in mourning from picketers.

Says who?

The courts shelter many groups at sensitive times. Women cannot be forced to disclose an abortion to a father...adopted kids cant force disclosure of records including the identity of their parents without consent...attorneys cant be force to reveal confessions of a client...priests cant be forced to reveal them either...

all these situations are different, but they are also the same: they protect sensitive relationships and sensitive areas of interaction where people might be forced to undergo tremendous hardship at the hands of another...and all are codified in law.

[boutons_deux]

"shock value that gets them national buzz."

which is exactly why dubya's goons kept anti-war dissenters roped off 100s of yards away.

btw, transvestite Julie Annie's NYPD travelled all over the country (all of America is "America's Mayor" 's jurisdiction?) scouting groups that might protest the 2004 Repug Convention in NYC.

[Parker2112]

Their presence near the funeral is critical to creating the kind of shock value that gets them national buzz.

Its not up to courts to ensure they get this. It is enough that they can speak out in a public forum. Especially where they dont have a specific tie to the deceased. Their message is general, concerning national policies, not the specific actions of the soldier.

Im sure anti-war protesters would get tremendous national press from the Rose Garden at the White House, or from the front steps of the Pentagon.

[Blake]

Says who?

what exactly do you think the judicial system is supposed to do?


The courts shelter many groups at sensitive times. Women cannot be forced to disclose an abortion to a father...adopted kids cant force disclosure of records including the identity of their parents without consent...attorneys cant be force to reveal confessions of a client...priests cant be forced to reveal them either...

all these situations are different, but they are also the same: they protect sensitive relationships and sensitive areas of interaction where people might be forced to undergo tremendous hardship at the hands of another...and all are codified in law.

so you think the court makes the law.

they definitely end up setting precedents, but you are mistaken on the purpose of the court system.

[Parker2112]

"shock value that gets them national buzz."

which is exactly why dubya's goons kept anti-war dissenters roped off 100s of yards away.

btw, transvestite Julie Annie's NYPD travelled all over the country (all of America is "America's Mayor" 's jurisdiction?) scouting groups that might protest the 2004 Repug Convention in NYC.

You got me: why transvestite?

[Spurminator]

Its not up to courts to ensure they get this.

Oh I agree. It's up to us to demand our news outlets quit feeding them attention.

[Parker2112]

what exactly do you think the judicial system is supposed to do?



so you think the court makes the law.

they definitely end up setting precedents, but you are mistaken on the purpose of the court system.

They dont make law. But law cant be written comprehensively to include every potential scenario that it will be applied to.

eg a law against theft cant include a comprehensive list of items that are protected by its scope. And when someone who is carrying a loaned item gets jacked, its up to a judge to apply theft or not.

Judges have to apply the law, not make the law. There is an enormous difference in the two.

[MannyIsGod]

Seems like this is a problem with an easy legislative remedy. Governing bodies, most likely state or local, need to establish code or ordinance setting a further legal distance from funerals where protests can take place. Make it 2500 hundred feet from the property line from the premise the funeral is taking place. At a half mile away, no one should be disturbed and these clowns will just look like a bunch of random morons protesting nothing.

If the people at the funeral don't even notice them until they see it on TV I think they're far enough.

[vy65]

If I remember correctly, distance restrictions fall within the time/place/manner exception to restricting speech. These restrictions are upheld because they don't infringe on the content of speech so much as they regulate when/where the speech occurs.

Given the context (i.e. dead marine's funeral), I think you could argue that putting a severe distance restriction is tantamount to suppressing the speech altogether. It's ridiculous to have a protest in the middle of a city, for example, while the funeral being protested takes place a half-mile away. I dunno if it's a winner, but it's something to consider.

I don't think reception of the message or the speech's hostility has any legal consequence whatsoever. If it's not hate speech and if it doesn't constitute incitement, I'm certain that the law does not care if people's feelings get hurt.

[Crookshanks]

If news cameras are going to continue to flock to these assholes, there's not really ANY distance they can set up from a funeral and not be some kind of disturbance.

There's no reason every protest they put on should be on television. We don't do news stories on every website that's set up with inflammatory and provocative views on homosexuality and soldiers, so why are these idiots given air time?

ding, ding, ding... we have a winner! These revolting inbreds are doing this for the attention. If no attention had ever been given them, then I'd be willing to bet they'd have gone away a long time ago. So the media is complicit - and this brings up another question. Are some of these media people so anti-war that they secretly approve of these protests?

[Parker2112]

If I remember correctly, distance restrictions fall within the time/place/manner exception to restricting speech. These restrictions are upheld because they don't infringe on the content of speech so much as they regulate when/where the speech occurs.

Given the context (i.e. dead marine's funeral), I think you could argue that putting a severe distance restriction is tantamount to suppressing the speech altogether. It's ridiculous to have a protest in the middle of a city, for example, while the funeral being protested takes place a half-mile away. I dunno if it's a winner, but it's something to consider.

I don't think reception of the message or the speech's hostility has any legal consequence whatsoever. If it's not hate speech and if it doesn't constitute incitement, I'm certain that the law does not care if people's feelings get hurt.

There are actually limits on time/place/manner reqts, for example: no excess discretion by the official signing the permits, and the regs must be very specific on the standards of what is prohibited, so as not to chill speech or affect too broad of a range of speech (ambiguous permit requirements). However for the most part, the govt has a very wide latitutde here that is almost never overturned.

And as for supression, I think you might say that this ='s supression IF they were actually demonstrating against the soldier or his acts, but here, where they are actually demonstrating something much broader (homosexuality in the US?), I wouldnt think the funeral would be necessary to make their point.

The correlation between homosexual behavior and dead soldiers is very attenuated, and only exists if you buy the group's groups strained religious logic. The connection between the funeral and the message is just as distant. So I think you can easily say they dont need the funeral backdrop to spread the message effectively.

[Spurminator]

So the media is complicit - and this brings up another question. Are some of these media people so anti-war that they secretly approve of these protests?

Given that a significant amount of airtime is given to them by Fox News, I'm guessing no. :rolleyes

This is about stirring up emotions which is good for ratings and page views.

[Parker2112]

ding, ding, ding... we have a winner! These revolting inbreds are doing this for the attention. If no attention had ever been given them, then I'd be willing to bet they'd have gone away a long time ago. So the media is complicit - and this brings up another question. Are some of these media people so anti-war that they secretly approve of these protests?

by your logic the viewer is complicit too...just sayin'...

[Drachen]

ding, ding, ding... we have a winner! These revolting inbreds are doing this for the attention. If no attention had ever been given them, then I'd be willing to bet they'd have gone away a long time ago. So the media is complicit - and this brings up another question. Are some of these media people so anti-war that they secretly approve of these protests?

They are not anti-war protests!

[Parker2112]

Given that a significant amount of airtime is given to them by Fox News, I'm guessing no. :rolleyes

This is about stirring up emotions which is good for ratings and page views.

Its also about keeping the public's attention off the real issues, such as the money that is being funneled into the pockets of govt officials to keep control away from the citizenry.

There is a science to controlling the masses, and giving these guys airtime appeals to folks on such a polarizing level it distracts them completely, while those in control remain in control.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll make sure to drop the N bomb from a block away and hold a sign up about bringing back slavery from a comfortable, legal distance if I ever need to denigrate someone in the future, then. :lol

Assuming you got the requisite paperwork, I'm pretty sure you could.

I was in New Orleans, on Bourbon Street, a few days before Hurricane Gustav hit. (It was a friend's last weekend in town, wanted to celebrate before he left for Korea.)

On a few street corners were people holding up signs saying that God is punishing New Orleans for gay people living in the city. You don't think I wanted to punch a few of them?

There are always a few there at Mardi Gras time too, calling out sinners and praising Jesus.

[Crookshanks]

They are not anti-war protests!

Their message might not be specifically against the war, but why do they only protest at MILITARY funerals? Is God only punishing the military members by letting them get killed? What about Policemen and Firemen - if their God is so against homosexuality, why is it only the military people that are punished?

[LnGrrrR]

If I remember correctly, distance restrictions fall within the time/place/manner exception to restricting speech. These restrictions are upheld because they don't infringe on the content of speech so much as they regulate when/where the speech occurs.

Given the context (i.e. dead marine's funeral), I think you could argue that putting a severe distance restriction is tantamount to suppressing the speech altogether. It's ridiculous to have a protest in the middle of a city, for example, while the funeral being protested takes place a half-mile away. I dunno if it's a winner, but it's something to consider.

I don't think reception of the message or the speech's hostility has any legal consequence whatsoever. If it's not hate speech and if it doesn't constitute incitement, I'm certain that the law does not care if people's feelings get hurt.

That's pretty much how I come in on it. I agree with the second paragraph as well.

[Drachen]

Their message might not be specifically against the war, but why do they only protest at MILITARY funerals? Is God only punishing the military members by letting them get killed? What about Policemen and Firemen - if their God is so against homosexuality, why is it only the military people that are punished?

Visibility.

[Blake]

Says who?

You:


They dont make law. But law cant be written comprehensively to include every potential scenario that it will be applied to.

Judges have to apply the law, not make the law. There is an enormous difference in the two.

nice job of clarifying it for yourself.

[LnGrrrR]

Their message might not be specifically against the war, but why do they only protest at MILITARY funerals? Is God only punishing the military members by letting them get killed? What about Policemen and Firemen - if their God is so against homosexuality, why is it only the military people that are punished?

Shhh Crookies, don't give them ideas...

[Parker2112]

You:



nice job of clarifying it for yourself.

This is what I said from the start. :wakeup

In thousands of cases, the court has to weigh the interests of the parties. You call this "making law?" :lol

[Blake]

In thousands of cases, the court has to weigh the interests of the parties.

why would a civil or criminal court weigh the interest of the parties in this case?

[Parker2112]

why would a civil or criminal court weigh the interest of the parties in this case?


Did you read/understand the first sentence of the article?


(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a legal battle that pits the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators.

[MannyIsGod]

Right to privacy is not being infringed upon. They're free to proceed in private as they see fit on private property as they do. No interpretation of the freedom of privacy extends to public land near where you are AFAIK.

[Blake]

Did you read/understand the first sentence of the article?

eh. I'm not up for arguing semantics with you.

carry on.

[Parker2112]

eh. I'm not up for arguing semantics with you.

carry on.

I want an Icky Shuffle jpeg so bad...so, so bad...

but I dont want to be stuck in this thread for the next 14 days :(

[Blake]

I want an Icky Shuffle jpeg so bad...so, so bad...

the court doesn't really weigh the interest of the parties, but I'm sure you'd try to spin in a way that helps you feel you've won another e-argument.

I don't know who told you that the more jpegs you post, the more of an e-winner you are, but they're e-right!