Supreme Court to weigh in on free speech during funerals.

**Cry Havoc** · 10-06-2010

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06/...ex.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 sexuality."

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 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 en ies 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 cons utional 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 bags in prison.

**TeyshaBlue** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06/...ex.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 sexuality."

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 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 en ies 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 cons utional 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 bags 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 monkeys."

**Drachen** · 10-06-2010

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 s, Soldiers are going to because of gays" as opposed to "YOUR son is in 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** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by 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 s, Soldiers are going to because of gays" as opposed to "YOUR son is in 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** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by Drachen

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** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

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** · 10-06-2010

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 ", or "f*gs will decide your eternal fate", "God hates people who hate"..etc..

**Cry Havoc** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by Drachen

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** · 10-06-2010

The Cons ution is kinda hard to live by, huh?

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 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** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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

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

**Wild Cobra** · 10-06-2010

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

**Drachen** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The Cons ution is kinda hard to live by, huh?

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 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** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**George Gervin's Afro** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by Drachen

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** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

True democracy

**Wild Cobra** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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 pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances.

**Cry Havoc** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

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** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Love that movie.

**TeyshaBlue** · 10-06-2010

Originally Posted by Drachen

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** · 10-06-2010

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?